relationship with mexico being the no. 1 -- came to office, he talked about the relationship with mexico being the number one priority for the united states. he got distracted by 9/11. there were other issues. he talked about the relationship with england being a priority to the united states. he fully supported -- he spent political capital on immigration reform and other issues related to the welfare of the latino community. there was great support for republican politicians that a spouse issues that benefited the latino community. -- that espoused issues that benefited the latino community. host: mr. obama beat mr. romney

by 58% to 40% in florida, 87% to 10% in colorado, at 80% to 17% in nevada, and 60% to 31% in virginia. we will go to one of the swing state in this election now. -- a swing states in this election now. caller: i love the statement that he made about self deportation. absolutely right. that is basically what the gop party is doing, not just to latinos, but everyone else. it is basically 47%. one of the things i would like to mention -- i wrote this over 20 years ago -- we had 36 men in mexico who controlled 54% of .exico's gross national product

how much can they need to buy? i am sick and tired of the 36 men in mexico -- the number of men in the united states, canada, central america, south america, europe and asia, etc., whose lust for more greed and power is destroying the e ntire planet for man and beast. that bothers me. i feel that they spend their lives living off a bus. as long as we obey their roles, everything is ok. -- off of us. as long as we obey their rules, everything is ok. guest: i think that oftentimes, the process that is taken in --

to having a greater appreciation for how democratic our process is, however when has 1 vote, one voice -- how everyone has one vote, one voice. it strengthens our democratic process. somehow i would like add to what i said already regarding self- deportation, the issue of arizona as a model to the nation, the arizona immigration law, it pains me, it hurt me to tears when i heard very recently in the experience of undocumented immigrants in the state of arizona. what they are going through is just heartbreaking. it does not represent the principles that i live by.

there are parents with children -- parents do not go to pta meetings because they are concerned that, on the way to visit with their children's teachers, they may be caught because of a traffic violation and get deported. there are families that do not go grocery shopping until very late at night for that same fear. undocumented immigrants in places like arizona and elsewhere -- they learn code words and phone numbers where they can call and, just by mentioning this word, notify supporters and friends that they have been caught by immigration and they may be in the process of deportation. there is an entire system in place in the shadows to support the undocumented immigrants' families and to get them lawyers. we can be much more transparent,

accountable, we can have part in dealing with our immigration situation. i think that -- we can have heart in dealing with our immigration situation. i think that is what is encouraging what you heard from the senate and house, that immigration reform will be a priority in this second term. i think it is about time that we reform the system that is broken. host: a comment and question for you from the twitter users out there. if the 1980's immigration reform did not work to stop in the -- illegal immigration, why would it work now? guest: loss have been in effective. they have not strengthened this nation.

they have not made it better. this system is broken. it gets us nowhere to ignore the fact that there are 12 million to 13 million undocumented immigrants in the united states. the case of students -- it is a fantastic example. there are some people who only know what is like to live in the united states. they were brought here when they were babies. they do not speak spanish. our broken immigration system will help them and their families -- will have them and their families deported. unless we change the system, we are doing an injustice to these families, to the students, and to the american people. host: we will go to ed from philadelphia, pennsylvania, on the republican line. good morning. caller: he said this brings him

to tears about the people and the way they are treated in the arizona. it brings me to tears to see the way people come across the border, have no respect for the rule of law. why aren't they having a mexican spring, like they did the arab spring? get rid of the corruption. make a better lifestyle. why come here and be a burden here and make us suffer and make us take care of you and bring our school systems down? why don't you just do guest: a thing that the latino community in the united states, the hard-working community is one that makes this nation better. i am proud of the 52 mattel in -- 52 million latinos of live here. like a said, it strengthens the nation that we are. host: lisa now on the line for

independents. thatr: i'm calling to say latino is not a race. are you going to talk about the racism going on in mexico against black mexicans and in south and central america? their actual latinos, and you're not talking about that. latinos is not a race. you're trying to fool people and say it is not a race. -- it is a race. guest: i am involved in working with the census bureau in defining how the community itself defines in order to better understand the numbers, needs, challenges, and opportunities. is not a homogenous community. -- it is not homogenous community. there is great diversity in terms of national origin.

but there are common principles, commonalities with in this community that brings us together. host: on that winter feed that we questioned before an immigration reform -- on that twitter feed the quick question before on immigration reform in the 1980's -- guest: this time we are looking at a border that is changed, much more protected. we hope to be in the process of redefining what comprehensive immigration reform is like, and learn some lessons from previous experiences. i think you will end up this time around, different than the 9080's, -- 1980's. host: brian on the democratic line in pennsylvania. caller: i want to bring a

different side to this. i work for a major motorcycle manufacturing company for 27 years. in our union shop, we have latino americans, african americans. we had every aspect of american culture. i worked very well with the latinos. they were very hard-working. there american people. i do not know why people want to try to make out like they are not. they care about their families, they care about god. i do not understand it. i used to be a republican until this year. 20 years, and i realized the republican party is not really looking at the whole country of the americans. they seem to be splitting them into groups. i do not agree with that. guest: i think oftentimes when

we talk but immigration reform, we talk about the human aspect of it -- about immigration reform, we forget about the human aspect of it. i think is important to keep in mind. what the caller was saying about being disappointed with the republican party, i think the recent polls show that about 66% of the american people want to see the immigration system reformed. it is not the number one priority, but certainly an important priority of latinos. it is also a priority of the american public, generally. host: on how latinos did in house and senate races this year, two republicans won seats to latinos.

one latino democrat won reelection, bob menendez from new jersey. in the house, 23 democratic latinos elected in this cycle and five republican latinos. back to the phones, we will go to the republican line, claudette. caller: i would like to know what nationality would use a hispanic are. we have blacks, -- would you say hispanics are. guest: i will try to answer that question about how hispanic latinos self identify. i think it is a concept that is still being worked out. there is great diversity within the latino community. there is diversity in terms of race, and in terms of national origin. yet there are these huge

commonalities. not just spanish language, but great commonalities that unite the community. host: tanner on the line for independents. caller: i have more of a statement and anything. this country was founded on immigrants coming to seek betterment, and to deny one person by saying this or that, i think the republican party -- we forget why we are here in the first place. we are a melting pot of many different nationalities brought together by the constitution. sometimes we forget to acknowledge, and i think immigration reform -- there has to the guidelines of it, but we're getting too strict with it in certain areas and to less strict in other areas. guest: in a minute or so that we

have left here, i want to get your thoughts. the latino vote is at an all- time high this year, 10%. what is the registration drive for latino groups, what does that mean for the mobilization of the latino group in the future, whether the elections in 2014 or the next presidential election? guest: the latino community was decisive in this election, and it will be decisive in future elections to. -- elections, too. there is approximately 24 million latinos letter eligible to vote, of which about 14.5 million actually registered for this election, and approximately 13 million latinos actually voted. the opportunity is much greater, even right now. the opportunity was much greater for latino engagement in

the electro process then we saw in this case -- electoral process than we saw in this election. host: max sevillia, thank you for coming by. up next, we'll be joined by david londoner, washington bureau chief of "the los angeles times." -- david lauter. >> c-span invites middle and high school students to send a message to the president. send president obama a short video, what he should consider in 2013 for a chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. close c-span studentcam is open to students grades 6-12. for complete rules, and go online to studentcam.org.

>> c-span programming is good because they tried to cover both sides of the issue. not getting into offering their own opinions. there are very comprehensive about covering the house and senate and different -- other centers here in d.c. that would not normally be exposed to. >> jeff wrigh clutchest c-span -- wright watches c-span. >> i want my [inaudible]

to be intensely journalistic. these days, you will miss the thing sutter influencing yourself and everything else. >> tom wolfe it is live from miami book for international. his book "back to blood," and his take on the city of miami. >> "washington journal" continues. host: "los angeles times" bureau thanks ford lauter. coming in. the headline on the peace in "the l.a. times," is, no longer your father's electorate. guest: by a large margin, this was the most diverse racially,

ethnically, and any we have had in the past american elections. this is no longer a monolithic white country. it was for a while, but now the electorate is rapidly catching up with the changing demographic realities of the country. host: as much has been made about the declining white vote, the white vote made up about 72% of this year's electorate. would that be the deciding factor in this election? guest: it probably was the biggest single factor. there were other factors of went into the election. that was the predominant one. the decline of the white vote to about 72% does not sound like a

lot a percentage points, but that is the millions of people. the republicans had hoped but the white share of the electorate this year would be higher than it was in 2008. they calculated of the white share ticked up boards, mitt romney would win easily. if it stayed at exactly the same -- take upwards, mitt romney would win easily. -- ticked upwards, mitt romney would win easily. host: the exit polls show that mitt romney took 59% of the white vote in this election to obama's 39%. we focused in the last segment on the hispanic vote. president obama taking 71% according to exit polls to mitt romney's percent. tell me about your take on the hispanic vote. guest: it was there, and it was

more decidedly democratic than it had been. you mention the national numbers. if you look at a couple of key states, it is even more dramatic. take florida, where the race has still not officially been called, but where the republicans have already said it know they're not going to win. the latino vote to hispanic vote went up from 14% of the electorate in 2008 all the way up to 17% this time around. that is a huge increase. these things normally creep up in incremental point -- up an incremental point or two. in addition to the size of that increase, president obama got an even bigger vote among hispanics than he had in 2008. host: we're talking with david lauter, "the los angeles times"

bureau chief about the makeup of the electorate but cannot on tuesday. democratic line, 202-585-3880. republican line, 202-585-381. independents, 202-585-3882. mr. lauter will take your questions and answer your comments about the makeup of the electorate. i want to focus on party identification. the electorate was 38% democrats, republican 32%. independents 29%. is this now democrats controlling the majority of folks to come out? guest: it is important to make a distinction between party id and

vote behavior. they are related things, but there are different things. there's a lot of confusion about that during the course of the campaign, and a lot of arguments about polls because people were mixing up those two things. you've got a country that is closely divided between democratic voters and republican voters. a lot of republicans, including a lot of republican pollsters, figured that the party id should be equally divided. when the polls kept coming out in the pre-election surveys showing more democrats than republicans, you have this constant complaint by people but the polls were skewed, there were too many democrats. -- that the poles were skewed. that was actually not true. -- polls were skewed. as we can see from the results,

it is pretty close. there were a lot of people who vote republican who no longer identify themselves as republicans. the identify themselves as independents. that independent group is a much more republican-skewing group than it used to be. before the election and run up to the election, republicans said, mitt romney is winning the majority of independents. he will win the election. that was not the case. independents are already heavily republican group. host: independent -- independents 50%. obama on tuesday, for the 2000 elections when obama won 52% of those who identified as independents to john mccain's 40%. this was a group were focused on. the candidates were trying to reach those independents. you're saying not all the

independents are truly independent? guest: they mean a lot of things. some people mean, i really go back and forth, sometimes i vote democratic, republican. that is one group. other people meehan i consistently vote for one party or the other, but i do not think of myself as a member of that party. you really have to distinguish between help people identify themselves, and how people actually vote, which is not the same thing. host: moses is from new york and the democratic line. caller: i want to comment on the latino vote. i know you had a guest before. how latinos perceive romney as

being an interventionist .andidate invading countries, like the dominican republic and panama latinos do not consider socialism as evil. if you hear comments from right wing in radio hosts and fox news, socialism is considered evil. in america, with fidel castro, it is very popular -- host: were you expecting the high turnout of latinos in this election? caller: i was motivated to vote, even though i am in a democratic state.

i knew obama was going to win here. i was motivated to vote because the way obama was demonized, from the press, the right wing, calling him names, calling him a socialist, i was motivated to vote. host: what to the exit polls show motivated latinos? guest: they do not ask that many questions. there are some things that are pretty clear. one of them, which the caller touched on, is that for a lot of immigrants in particular, some of the rhetoric the republicans use about free markets and individualists does not quite ring right because of a different cultural tradition. carter regan voters, who were a big -- puerto ricans, obama's

health care plan was popular with them. they have a government sponsored health-care plan in puerto rico and people are used to it. it works well. the republican position on immigration really alienated a very large number of latino voters. host: question from maverick on twitter, mr. lauter, do you feel that the voter suppression was affected voter turnout? guest: it may be hard to prove, because you cannot run the election a second time and see if the turnout would of been different. democrats very effectively used republican efforts to restrict early voting, or voter i.d..

democrats use those very effectively as organizing tools and rallying tools and saying to their voters, the republicans are trying to keep you from voting. prove them wrong by showing up. that may have been a motivating factor for a lot of voters. on theet's go to patty republican line. caller: i am really questioning why we even have a republican party anymore. we could not get the votes from hispanics. the hispanics do not like us. white women do not like us. blacks do not like us. the jewish vote does not like us. if we had a totally democratic party, not even have a republican party, what would happen? the democrats would then decide who gets what, who does what,

who pays what? i am finding the republican party -- i do not want to work anymore. i have lost part because i do not see any point. guest: american policy tends to be cyclical. parties will have a big triumph and a couple years later -- lost heart. -- lost heart. it is probably premature to write the epitaph of the republican party. the wheel will turn again. the republicans have some challenges ahead but they're going to have to figure out a way to deal with. host: the caller brings up the female vote. obama winning female vote 55% 2 mitt romney's 44%.

that was down a little bit from 2008, when obama won 56% to about 43%. guest: if you dive deeper into the numbers, it is not so much the there is a gender gap. we talked a lot about the gender gap. there is a marriage gap. obama won by better than two-one among unmarried women. he also won among unmarried men, but a smaller margin. he lost married women and married men, but a bigger margin. unmarried women make up more than 20% of the electorate. they're increasingly a building block of the democratic coalition. that is what is driving that gender gap the people talk about. to al in new york on the line for independents.

caller: as a registered and there wasoter, no candid on the ballot this year for the independence party. -- can get it on the ballot this year for the party for independents. there is a few percentage points out there that they just do not have until election day, keeps them on their toes. this year it was not the case. they knew where they're going to vote, so my question is, does this signify the end of the independent party as far as political elections? guest: in general, third-party candidates or small party candidates for president as opposed to statewide office as -- for president, they have tended to be people like ralph

nader, who made his name outside of politics and then used his notoriety to fuel a presidential campaign, or someone like ross perot in the 1992 and 1996 elections to was independently wealthy and could find his own -- fund his own campaign. those tend to be charismatic single person candidacy rather than a continuing political movement. this year, for whatever reason, there was not anyone to fit into that. both of the two major parties had expanded their grasp on the electorate. there are fewer people. host: on twitter, did gary johnson take more votes from republicans or democrats, and what are the demographics of third-party voters? guest: for the second part of the question, it is hard to

answer. exit polls like any poll had a margin of error. trying to parcel out demographics of support is tough because margin of error overwhelms everything else you have got. gary johnson probably took more votes away from the republicans than he did from obama. even the size of president obama's margins in the various states, there is no state currently in which johnson's marchant -- johnson's vote would have made a difference. it looks like that might of been the case in florida, but this -- at this point it is not. host: is there one firm that does all of the exit polling, or many? guest: it is one from the dozen

for a consortium of the major broadcast networks and the associate press -- it is one firm for a consortium of the major broadcast networks and the associated press. it asks them to fill out ballots showing how they voted for and a few basic demographic factors. the supplement that with a telephone survey to capture people who voted early -- they supplement that with a telephone survey to capture people who voted early. the put those two things together, and then they match the turnout that the exit polls predicted in a particular precinct with the actual turnout in that precinct. the exit poll goes through a process of what is called waiting. you have to await the results to make sure your exit poll is

accurately reflecting the turnout in the precincts where you sampled. the numbers tend to shift over the first 24 hours as votes come in. that is why often those a first wave of exit polls that sometimes gets week out or is wildly inaccurate, the have not been weighted yet -- but once done, it is a wonderful analytic tool. host: on the democratic line, jim from el paso, texas. caller: i think there is a demographic, and i represented. i do not think the republicans even thought about it -- represent it. my wife is hispanic. i am anglo. my children are half and half. i am a democrat. my wife is hispanic, and hispanics voted largely democratic. if you add those numbers up, i

think the gop is in more trouble than they think. guest: that is an interesting point and part of what i was alluding to in the beginning. cultural factors have alienated the republicans from a certain block of voters. voters who are more comfortable with the increasing diversity of the country, and those were less comfortable with that. it does not mean they are racist. it is a question of what people feel comfortable with. how they adjust to change. the republicans have gotten themselves in a position where the are reliant on those voters who are less comfortable with the changing nature of the country. over time, that is a shrinking group. the percentage of voters who are comfortable with the change is a growing share. that creates certain problems. host: let's go to robert on the

republican line from louisville, ky. caller: i am a registered republican -- kentucky. retired in 1996. i have been watching c-span and the congress party regular. that influenced my vote completely. 2008, i voted for obama. 2012, i voted for obama, too. is there any sort of -- [inaudible] host: what do people say about the folks who are attuned to what is going on in congress? do people say whether they're influenced by gridlock in congress? guest: as a general rule, people

who folks pay most attention to public affairs, people who follow debates in congress tend to be the most partisan. this is not 100%, but the tendency is that they tend to be either strong democrats or strong republicans. the people who tend to be less partisan also tend to be people who do not follow political debates as much. they're not as interested in them. host: fredrik online for independents from blue mountain, mississippi -- frederick on the line for independents from blue mountain, mississippi. caller: i have never seen anything for the native americans, indians. i am wanting to know, are there any polls that show which we

devoted -- way they voted? host: the native american population is relatively small and tends to be localized. would they fall into the other race category that made up to% of the electorate? -- 2%? guest: they probably would. host: 38% for mitt romney. there are some particular geographic areas of the country that have a large native american population, other areas that have large reservations or areas that have a lot of native american population. in most places, those tend to go democratic. from columbus, indiana on the democratic line. caller: i am wanting to have a

conversation or have the speaker discuss what he felt the numbers represented in terms of the 39% of white voters. people make assumptions about the various minorities and who would represent their interests best. maybe there is more about that percentage of white voters who shows -- who chose obama. guest: the president also strong support among white voters came from college educated -- the president's strongest support among white voters came from college-educated white women. it is also true that the president did fairly well with

white, working-class voters in key states such as ohio. his ability to hold on to support for what you might think of as the old democratic coalition, which was heavily focused on white, working-class voters -- he held on to those voters in ohio, wisconsin, iowa, in part because of support for the auto bailout, in part because of mitt romney's background as a venture capitalist did not sit well with those voters. the president was able to hang onto enough support from working-class white voters in those states to win those electoral votes. host: this from the "new york times," story on voter turnout. worthy of the bailout was probable, mr. obama benefited.

-- and where the auto bailout was palpable, mr. obama benefited. guest: the autumn bailout was a huge benefit for the president. -- auto bailout was a huge benefit for the president. in the end, it paid an enormous electoral dividend. host: shelby on the republican line, north carolina. caller: i do not believe anybody who is a registered voter in the united states count. there or electoral voters in each state. do away with the electoral college's, and then americans vote will count. one vote, one person. host: talk about the voters'

attitudes towards the electoral college system. is this something not getting measured in exit polls? guest: after the 2000 election, when florida was contested. i think unhappiness with the electoral college system was at a peak. there were a lot of people who think the electoral college should be scrapped. you should go by the popular vote. there are advantages and disadvantages on either side. the electors are chosen by the popular vote in that state. it is not like people's votes to not count. it is true that the electoral college system focuses more attention on certain states than others. if you would strictly by the popular vote -- went strictly by the popular vote, you could see other problems develop.

we are still counting votes. there are 10 million votes that have not yet been counted scattered across the country. as of yesterday, there were 700,000 justin los angeles county that had not been counted. that will not change the outcome -- just in los angeles county that had not been counted. host: 125 million folks voted in this election. the number is expected to pick up? guest: whether it will surpass the votes from 2008 or not, we do not know yet. it depends how many uncounted ballots there are out there. no one has a perfect handle on that, because some of the states have a pretty good sense of how many votes they still have to go. some of the states do not know how many are still out there. from the past experience of 2008, 2004, they're probably in

the neighborhood of 10 million yet to go. we will top 130. host: independent line. caller: a think the electoral college system is a brilliant. it defends the two party system . going back to minorities, and live in northern virginia. it is very diverse. maybe because i am part of the younger generation, but i do not understand why and minorities go to polls, they see themselves as minorities instead of just americans. everyone in this country has equal opportunity. it confuses me why minorities gravitate towards one party. guest: i do not think it is necessarily a case of minorities to see themselves as "minorities."

everyone who goes to the polls thinks about, which candidate is more likely to take my interests into account? the things that i care about. in the case of latino voters, which we were talking about before, i mentioned immigration. a lot of latino voters, even if they are citizens, they may have a spouse or a cousin or a brother-in-law or apparent who came here illegally, or a friend who is no legal immigrant. some polls showed in some states, more than half of latino voters it had a close friend or relative who came here illegally. the issue of how to deal with that legal immigrant population is a hugely important one for a lot of latino voters. they felt that president obama would be more empathetic to those illegal immigrants, and to

solving the problem in a manner that they felt was appropriate then governor romney would be. they voted accordingly. host: jim on twitter, how did the lgbt community vote in this election? guest: that is a hard thing to measure on an exit poll, because people are not necessarily forthcoming about their sexuality. that becomes an issue. the percentage is not that high, so that is also an issue. i think it is probably a pretty safe bet that a substantial majority of gays and lesbians voted for the president. host: jimmy from san antonio, texas on the democratic line. you are on with david lauter of "los angeles times and." -- times." caller: most latinos and identify themselves with the catholic church.

the catholic church takes the side of the republicans on certain issues. the evangelicals, if i saw a poll correct, a% of the vote -- 80% of the vote for romney. do you think the religious vote is significant? host: mr. lauter, i want to point out from the exit polling, 21% of white evangelicals or white born-again christians supported president obama in this election, and 78% supported mitt romney. guest: that's right. religion remains an important factor in american politics.

the nomination does not so much. it used to be that you talked about the catholic vote as different from the protestant vote, for example. that is not the case anymore. the big division is between people who go to religious services once a week or more, and people who either attend religious services sporadically or are not religious at all. the more secular part of the population is much more heavily democratic. the more religious part of the population is more heavily republican. as the caller noted, that is not quite as true among latinos, many of whom are catholic. in their case, the other factors you talking about seem to be more important than the religious -- we were talking about seem to be more important than the other factors. host: how long have you been

working on campaigns out of the "los angeles times"? guest: i have been doing it on and off since i covered 1988, 1992, 1996. host: 1988, what would your biggest surprise be and how these exit polls have changed and the demographics have changed in all these different elections to of covered? guest: if you look at the long arc over those years, the huge difference is the growth of the minority vote. mitt romney one i higher percentage of the white vote -- one a higher percentage of the white vote -- won a higher percentage of the white vote

then anyone and he still lost. he would have won a landslide in 1988. the changing nature of the american electorate makes an enormous difference. host: oklahoma, line for republicans. caller: good morning. the question i would like to ask is, do you have any idea how many voting age americans do not take part in the voting process? guest: about 40%, probably a little less than 40% cannot vote. if you measure -- did not vote. if you measure turnout according to what they call the voter eligible population, which is people 18 years or older who are eligible to vote -- not in prison or for some other reason,

in eligible -- the votes counted will be in the neighborhood of 61%. about 39% will not have voted. host: north carolina, a line for independents. -- line for independents. caller: on the hispanic vote, puerto rico since 1917, just now the head referendum for it to become a state. -- they had a referendum for it to become a state. if puerto rico becomes a state, it will have eight electoral votes because of the population. two senators and six congressmen. how do you think this will take

in the future, and it is possible and will become a state after this referendum? guest: the state could issue for puerto rico -- statehod -- statehood issue for puerto rico has been under debate for decades now. the republican governor of puerto rico was defeated for reelection. he was a big supporter of mitt romney. it is somewhat complicated. given the voting history of puerto ricans on the mainland, you would assume that if it became a state, those electoral votes would tend to favor the democrats. on the other hand, historically it has been the republicans to of been associated with the state would party in pertu rico. it is a complicated -- state could -- statehood party in

puerto rico. issueset's talk about and how they impacted voters. foreign policy, what were voters' attitudes about foreign policy issues? guest: the exit poll asked people what their most important issue was. the economy was way up on top, almost 3/5ths of people said the economy was the number-one issue. the percentage who said that foreign policy was the most important issue was down in the single digits. that is not the driver. foreign policy is usually not the biggest driver. it is worth noting that those voters who said that foreign policy was the most important issue, president obama won that group. host: that made for about 5%.

the economy, 59% put that as the most important issue. federal budget deficit, 15%. talk about how the health care law played into voters' attitudes? 18% said it was the most important issue. guest: that is an important thing. almost one in five voters said that health care was the most important issue. the president won roughly three- quarters of that vote. throughout the republican primaries, the issue of obamacare was a huge rallying cry. in 2010, the republicans won some big victories because of anger on the part of

conservative voters about the president's health-care law. by the time you get to this election, you see this turnaround were the voters who care the most about health care are siding with him. the argument that the white house has made all along has been that over time, people will appreciate the benefits of the law, and the bad things opponents predicted will not come about, the law will get more popular over time. it remains to be seen if that is correct. the evidence from this election suggests they may be right. host: john twitter, this analysis of exit polls, -- on twitter, a mandate on either -- did the president or either party in mandate -- a mandate?

guest: he accumulated political capital himself. even though his popular vote margin was narrow. president obama is popular vote margin is going to end up being almost identical to the one that president bush got in 2004. his electoral college majority will be bigger. considerably bigger than president bush. and mandate is in the eye of the beholder, particularly the beholders on capitol hill. host: line for republicans, west virginia. caller: i am a conservative through and through, but barack obama is my president. i wish him well. i hope he succeeds. i agree with rush limbaugh.

if you have someone stand on a street corner to give away $200 bills, he is the most popular person in that town. everything i really believed the markets are being indoctrinated in the school system -- my grandkids have told me things that there teacher talks about in school, and it is nothing more than indoctrination. host: last word in this segment. guest: the caller expressed something a lot of conservatives feel, that too many americans are becoming too adjusted to the idea of government programs, government handouts. also that the number generation is much more liberal. we saw that in the vote. obama did very well with voters under 30. host: david lauter, the "los angeles times," washington

bureau chief. that is our show today on." -- on "washington journal." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> examination and response to tuesday's election results continues in washington. join us. house speaker john boehner will hold a news conference for it later this afternoon, president obama will speak to the nation. we expect him to speak about the upcoming fiscal cliff. that will be live at 1:05

eastern c-span. j kearney has a briefing schedule that is set for 2:00 p.m. eastern. >> if there is a mandate, is a mandate for us to face the challenges we face. in the weeks and months ahead, we faced a series of challenges and great opportunity. >> the american people want us to work together. they want a balanced approach to everything but especially with the huge deficit and taxes. >> the newly elected congress starts work in january.

work is expected on the impending fiscal cliff including the expiration of the bush era tax cuts and possible cuts to domestic and military spending. fall all the debates with live house coverage on c-span and the senate on c-span2. there was a conference yesterday. pollsters participated in a town discussion that talked about economic efforts and how this affects lobbying in the lame- duck session. the opening panel concentrated on the presidential race. this is about 45 minutes.

>> we will start on the far end with stanley collender. next to him is scott lilly. he was the staff director for the house appropriations committee. next to him is chris condeluci, a long time hill staff expert on tax policy and health care. thank you for coming. this conversation will be about -- we will drill down a bit about how the results from the election might impact some of the big policy questions going forward.

i want to ask the same question to begin. if he could talk about how you think the political landscape has changed or not changed based on tuesday on policy broadly defined. >> my impression is that the two parties moved farther apart on election night. that will make decisions on that more difficult. been talking with clients. as we get past the election, everybody would join hands and it would all come together quickly, to which i use the word "nonsense." democrats in the house lost it. blue dogs have a somewhat

smaller majority. john boehner is in more trouble now. the senate democrats are more progressive than the people they are replacing. they still do not have 60. it is not quite a stand pat situation. i do not see anybody having that kumbaya moment. point of view up until tuesday night. i think we have been in a situation where both sides seemed to harden their positions as we go forward. i think there was a lot that changed tuesday.

that environment is somewhat reflected in the statement that speaker boehner made yesterday afternoon. i was told about comments he made on a conference call about how they had to change the way they operate. you had a very significant victory by the president who campaigned on the issue of fiscal responsibility. is there going to be a change in tax rates? , 60% favored that nationwide.

most wanted it on people over $250,000 a year. they wanted 25 of 30 open senate seats. i think they are coming back with a lot of wind in their sails, like the last session of congress or the resurgent republican majority came back with something of a mandate. it is hard for them to argue that there is much of that mandate. they lost seven seats. i think they had a jury mandate but not a mandate. they did well. they perhaps maintain their majority because of the way they

were able to draw districts last time. virginia went three points for the president. a very careful effort to draw those lines. it is hard to claim to have the public behind you because you have drawn the lines in a certain way. i think things have changed. they ignore that at their peril. >> it is interesting. one could argue the house became a little more conservative and the senate became more liberal. i was not here for the earlier session. we do see the status quo.

taxes and health care reform -- law, we have the same place at the table. will the players change their positions? i think that is an open question. we have somewhat divergent views. i have a hard time believing that folks will change their position. both sides in the house and senate feel they have an opportunity to do the right thing within the next year. the american public has a short- term memory. there are opportunities to get things done that may not sit well with either side's base. as we get closer to the next

election, some of those things that were agreed to may be forgotten or overlooked or there has been enough discussion justifying why the positions were changed to justify to each of those bases why the policy makers made the decisions that they made, would not have sat well with their bases. when it comes to budget and taxes and the health care law, i think it comes down to the debt limit. we are talking about the fiscal cliff. it will be on the table in the larger discussions. it will come down to the debt limit.

will the house conservatives be willing to compromise on voting to increase the debt limit when that vote comes up? the debt limit is part of the fiscal cliff. treasury has played games with what the final deadline is. treasury can play some of those games. it could be pushed into february or march of next year. i think it comes down to the debt limit. will the conservatives be willing to compromise? i do not think they will. a compromise on spending and entitlements and that remains to be seen. debt limit is the big bogie out

there. >> i don't think there will be a compromise in the house. youou're a house member, know you'll keep control of the house for the next 10 years. the only way you might not keep control of the house is if you annoy your base. if you go back on debt ceiling taxes and cut a deal with the white house, then you lose your base support. they may not show up and vote. i tend to agree with you. what we have to do is go over the cliff so constituents will say make this go away.

"i will give you permission to change your vote to make this go away." >> can you make the argument that is almost all we did in august of last year? we almost went over the cliff. got hammered for the downgrade in our credit rating. that was not enough, i guess. i think that the gerrymandering can insulate a majority party. that insulation can get pretty thin. i worked in the capital in 1994 . we had a pretty dominance set of districts in terms of advantage.

that didn't stop us from losing 62 seats in november of 1994. most of the time people didn't pay attention to the fact that -- 14 months ago, people were angry at house republicans over the debt limit and how they pushed the country to the brink. by the time we got into the summer of this year, there were so many other things that are dominating public awareness. the house cannot stand under the radar indefinitely. that is where they are headed. >> interest rates fell after the downgrade. this would be different. spend

in cuts that would affect their jobs -- spending cuts that would affect their jobs. >> let's talk about that. what it means. speed boehner said he is ready to work with the white house -- speaker boehner said he is ready to work with the whitehouse. he said that before. tom coles said we have been in favor of that since last summer. what does john boehner mean by new revenues? is he saying -- >> let me read his words. "we're willing to except revenue under the right conditions.

does it come as a byproduct of a growing economy and energized by it fair tax code with fewer loopholes and lower rates for all?" his idea is to lower rates and dynamic scoring. ivot.nk he was able to pas >> i am glad that you read his words. i do think that is what the republicans mean by revenue. there are detractors and supporters of the theory. if you have lower tax rates, there will be more economic activity, which will result in additional tax revenue into the u.s. treasury.

again, it comes down to whether you buy into that theory. the republicans hold that theory and belief in it. the other side of the aisle does not believe in the theory to the extent the republicans do. do you have still made over the ideologies -- do you have a stalemate over the ideologies? those ideologies are going to clash. it could result in gridlock and nothing happened to the debt limit comment. i think it will take us going over the cliff for policy makers and or the american people saying, what the heck is going on?

we saw a status quo election. the same players are around the table. they still elected the same officials. something drastic has to push that change. i believe it will be going over the fiscal cliff. nothing really happened after august of last year. that's a weird way of saying that. if we go over the cliff, i do see the markets being adversely impacted. if you have taxes in the mix, that will not sit well with others. i do see some gridlock and revenues on the table in the

theory of reducing tax rates. finally, the republicans, if they agree to tax increases, they want that to go to deficit reduction and not to be spent on something else. that is a position they hold true. >> the discussion that has to take place first is within the republican party. republicans have to talk to republicans. what they have to decide is, are willing to support something that will bring in more revenue than current law? it and how do with

do we get it? the best way to cut spending is to get the economy growing. the republican reaction what it been negative. there is a long way to go here. we are a day and a half after the election and the fiscal cliff is six weeks away. this is going to go on. will it be settled before christmas? >> no, i lost they have some temporary agreement that pushes them into next year. >> do you think we will go off the fiscal cliff or that we need to to get our minds right? >> both. >> i do not agree with that.

i see it a little differently. asure runs outeacher of borrowing authority in february, in the same way they 2011. may of taking get another -- they can get another eight weeks of time. we're talking about mid april, taax day. thing that is down the road. think john boehner is aware of the danger that was done to them. i think there was serious

damage. the dow dropped about 20% in the 30 days following that thing and the average i.r.a dropped about 20%. there was a lot heat. approval of congress dropped more than the market did during that period. i think he will look for some way to hitch a deal to the debt limit so he doesn't have to try to sell that again. i do not see a huge damage to the economy and ordinary people if we get a tax bill in mid january. i think people do not

understand what sequestration is all about. sequestration is not like a government shutdown. the government can protect any program that protect life and property. you are going to see cataclysmic changes in critical services on january 3. they will do anything on both sides to avoid it. >> i want to turn to you and see if anybody wanted to ask any questions right now. this has been a fairly pessimistic take. they will bring you a microphone.

>> hi. with recent earnings reports being lower-than-expected and the stock market was down yesterday. if we're looking at the potential for the fiscal cliff and going into the holiday season, our elected officials -- who have the worst quarter coming out now than expected? we may be saving and not spending. >> yeah, the awareness of just how mad voters are going to be . >> i think this affects the market and broader economy. there is an enormous hesitance on the part of consumers and by the ceo's of larger corporations

to make investments and to hire people. to the extent that that becomes more obvious to policy makers, they will want to move -- >> i see you nodding. certainty and uncertainty. all of us here, we like certainty. the election provided certainty with the health-care law. businesses are viewing the health-care lot as damaging, as not being able to hire and being impacted by some of the taxes on the the law.

so that certainty is good in that we have the certainty which we all wanted. there are adverse affects. that is how businesses are viewing it. when it comes to the uncertainty, we have uncertainty over taxes. that is a bigger driver. until we can get some semblance of certainty, i think you'll still see the economy and the market react to that in a negative way. we could see this next quarter and beat a slow growth -quarter as a result of what happened on tuesday. >> can i respond?

i want to talk about the political side. i have asked dozens of business people. if i give you 100% certainty that taxes are going up, would that be ok? the answer is -- "that is not what i want." it is policy itself. i do not buy it as much as others. the question is based on rationale. cut it out. [laughter] members of congress would have been climbing over themselves to prevent the fiscal cliff before the election.

this will be the worst fiscal policy put in place since the recession. there's nothing about this that makes any sense at all. the impact on earnings and results would have been more important if ever bite realize it on monday then next week. third, this is part of going over the cliff. the market may have to drop 1000 points. everybody's taxes will go on january 1 but nobody will realize it until they get their first paycheck on january 15. >> sequestration is $1.2 trillion. any chance the incoming

congress will deal with the bigger problem of deficit reduction that needs to take place? >> thoughts? >> sequestration is only $120 billion in this year. after that, it is achieved by lowering spending caps. do i think there's a deal? no. >> let's say we go off the cliff. look like?2013 upligh >> you have the funding for the government. and god knows how many times

they will want to take a bite out of the apple. i think they want to pass on that in 2013. >> several democratic senators have talked about simpson-bowles and how that is a path forward and republicans have not come over to them. i think simpson-bowles is more difficult than they do. we are going to make some savings in entitlements. who disagrees with that? that is like we will cut discretionary spending. simpson-bowles gets a lot more specific but not in a way that you can tell exactly what policy would be.

if you test that policy with focus groups made up of republicans, you will find that those focus groups are saying, "what the hell are you talking about?" "you will cut my social security checks by what?" entitlements are payments to individuals. everybody has talked about the broad term. nobody has given the specific proposal that congress will have to pass. you have a different view of that. >> i will try to be short. i could see in april or may time frame the effort to come up with a grand bargain. that would be driven by the debt

limit. if the republicans could get their way by getting the administration and the leadership to agree, you may see republicans agree to some kind of tax increase on the upper income folks. there are tv things that we know that they want and that is a 49.6 rate on the top rate -- 39.6% rate. that is the main goal. they may be willing to compromise. if the democrats, if 39.6% in the tax rate and the republicans agree to that, then in my have

trillion grand4 a chile bargain. the increase the retirement age to 67 and some other things, tinkering around the edges with entitlements. that's the way i would answer the $4 trillion in late march- april timeframe. >> you had me. >> i do not think there will be an agreement on the debt limit. >> some of the provisions that will be discussed. there was a lot less bipartisanship then there is now. it will take at least two years now and will put the grand

bargain by the end of 2015. that is the earliest. >> can we turn to something more fun? i wanted to talk about the health care law. i wonder if -- has anything changed here? the house voted about 6000 times to repeal some portion of it. related to the election. do we revisit this? do we just move on? >> through reconciliation. that would prevent the

filibuster in the senate. to encourage people to elect republicans to the senate. that didn't happen. that makes the reconciliation strategy probably hard to achieve. >> the polls continue to show that most voters aren't comfortable with the health care law. as you get closer and more people get coverage, i think the opposition to it will fade. i think it has faded because that is an issue in this election that did not happen. i do not think the underlying policy is at risk. >> don't you think there'll be

some modifications? >> some, but i don't think significant. you have the health-care law on the federal level. i don't think congress will have much to do with the healthcare law anymore. we're not in the political silly season that we have been to chip the law. congress is almost out of the picture. the administration has to administer this law. there are pieces of the law that did not have guidance about how they will be implemented. have not seen these rules. these were difficult issues the

agencies have been working through. we do expect to see regulations coming out because they have to. that is on the federal level. the second step is the states. it comes down to the states implementing the law. we have 30 republican governors and some republican gains in state legislatures. if the implementation is in the hands of the states, and the politics on tuesday trended republican, you might have some problems with regard to implementing this law because there might be some republican governors that still remain resistance.

they have to fight with their republican legislature. that it's a big deal. i do not think there is a lot that is going on with health care at the federal level. it comes down to the state implementing the law. there could be some rancwrenches thrown in. >> we don't have a ton of time left. i want to see if folks have questions. let's hear them if you have them. >> thanks. i read some of the news alerts with speaker boehner -- i read the comments and it reads to me that this is the central tenet

of republican fiscal policy for the past 30 years. maybe after 140 characters, people stop reading now. has there -- i know there are many factors that drive economic growth. is there a strong evidence to support this type of fiscal and economic policy creates new revenue? >> does supply side work ? >> does that work? we will figure that out right here. >> the congressional research

service -- the senate republicans jumped all over them and threaten if they released a report. it is online and you can read it. if you distrust that, look at what kind of surpluses we got from the bush tax cuts in 2001. >> chris, what do you think? >> i do believe in supply side. i believe lower taxes do have a positive impact on economic growth. we sought in the 1980's -- we saw that in the 1980's. a lot of the good work that was done in tax reform in 1986, or more special interest was put

into the code, which makes the tax code that much more complex. that is why people are saying we need tax reform once again. i do believe in the supply side aspect of it. there is controversy over it, there's a split among economists out there. i do not know who to believe because i do not have the economic training. there is a split among what economists say about whether it works or does not work. i did not think each side will come to an agreement about which is the right path forward. i personally do not invest or place a lot of weight on it.

there are expert economists on both sides of the issue saying take different things and i do not know who to believe. >> when you see revenue growth, it is hard to attribute that to -- tax rates went down. was spending that went on. >> someone who gets a tax cut does something with the money. 2008, the bush administration pushed to a tax cuts, almost none of which was spent by individuals. the impact on the economy was zero. at is the problem -- that is the problem.

if you cut corporate taxes and they save the money, they are not creating any economic activity. that was part of the problem with the stimulus package. 40% of it was tax cuts. >> what are people doing with that money? it comes down to consumer confidence. the payroll tax reduction was intended to put some money in the pockets of consumers or taxpayers, to which they could use around the stimulus timeframe. was let's put some money back in the pockets of people. the tax credit was an example of that. did people use that money to buy

things? that circulates around the economy and spurs economic growth. oftentimes they use it to pay it. debt with a safve we're such it highly leveraged society. you understand my point. they wanted to put more tax dollars into people's pockets. it is intended to spur spending and consumption. that may justify my belief in the supply side. rather than saying i'm for lowering taxes, to which they use it in a way that spurs economic growth, which stands us

vindicated. >> there are times when this society has had difficulty with capital formation. there was more interest in producing the products then there was capital to invest in the equipment to hire the people to make them. if there are times when that type of tax cut is appropriate to facilitate capital formation, this is not one. have 60 corporations sitting on $3.5 trillion right now. they cannot find any businesses they want to buy. you're going to have to have consumer demand before you have more consumer earnings. we've gone through 36 months where consumers have rebuilt

their balance sheets and are healthy enough and maybe can start building. it will be better to stimulate the lower end then put more money at the top. right now we have a glut at the top. >> we are just about ready to wrapup. if there's one more question. >> how will the fight go with the states health care? is it going to be in the courts? >> if a state continues to resist, it will be a federal issue. they are resolved by the supreme court. dare i say we end up back in the supreme court.

there are republican states that will start to try to make good on implementing the law. there are certainly some out liars out there. will they take it through the process? the remains to be seen. that is the track it could possibly take if republican states decide not to implement the law. >> i have to end this here. thank you all. thank you for your questions and enjoy the rest of the day. >> john boehner will hold a press briefing at 11:15 this

morning and we will have his remarks live here on c-span. president obama will also speak this afternoon. live coverage starts at 1:05. afterwards, we will open the phone lines. jay carney is scheduled to brief 2:00.ters at p.m. phone calls from today's "washington journal." host: sheila is on.

caller: of light to see the economy get better. and the educational system. that is what i would like to see get better. i want to make a comment. the people at fox news -- i was looking at those people yesterday. and they were doing a lot of name-calling yesterday. and they say the people that voted for obama are locked are a bunch of idiots they are doing a

lot of wininghost: let's stick to looking forward for the next four years. president will be able to get some traction? get better. during the first four years with obama, i think the republicans -- he was trying to do a lot of down. they would not help. i think this time around since he got office, they need to come together and work with him. host: thank you for calling. sheila from alabama. we will go now to alex from pennsylvania on the independent line. what are your top priorities for president obama? for a second term? caller: i will speak as a rural resident of pennsylvania. i cannot speak for everyone, but i feel as a youth voter, somebody who enjoys and prides himself in rural life and our

heritage and industries that the disrespect president obama has shown our region in northern pennsylvania regarding national -- natural-gas drilling shows his disregard for our local and rural economy is. -- economies. and what are really the economic engines of our region. to say he is sacrificing us for a energy policy that is politically expedient. and i hope he will keep his promise that he focuses on sustainable energy and abandon his support for -- our realtor is shutting down. we have barry farms here shut -- we have dairy farms here shut down since 2007. -- dairy farms since 2007. that is america's bread and

butter literally. i hope he will respect the rural culture. host: alex tweets -- host: one other tweet this morning from brian -- host: brought up this morning that latino voters are urging obama to focus on immigration. here is a story from "the new york times."

host: "in the sense of urgency from mr. boehner." we will focus more on that issue and issues facing latino voters later on in today's "washington journal."

we will go to the democrat line. ida from longwood, florida. what is the most import issue for you in the second term? caller: the most apparent issue that the news wanted to think is the fiscal cliff. it is interesting the word fiscal cliff is a cliche for "how much money is going to be taken out of the $150 million ira's of mr. romney." understand that the fiscal cliff was imposed by bush to keep the tax benefits for the rich in place. and then in a compromise, obama continued those for another year. because in 2008 there were supposed to run out.

nobody is talking about the compromise that he made not to actually bring the the 2008 provisions into place. we have four things we're looking at. they can lead that policy continue. t policycan let tha tpoli continue. some say it will increase spending cuts and will weigh heavily on growth and possibly drive the economy back into a recession. that is really the rich saying that my money is going to be cut. therefore, not going to have as many tax deductions. right now the rich can take 100% of their money and they can actually be ducted in the tax -- deduct it in the tax year leading up to 2011. it almost lost it in 2008. now, what they are concerned about is the money they have

outside of the country that they made with private equity and the hedge funds, they cannot bring that money back into the country. host: thank you so much for the call this morning. let's go to the republican line. jessica is from diamond, ohio. jessica, what do you want to see the president address? caller: i went to see him address everything he did not address in his first term. i wanted to see transparency. i wanted to see him make an effort to reach across the aisle and work with republicans and democrats that are not as liberal as he is to make policies to grow the economy, make improvements to education and health care and all of the things that we need to get busy doing. and we need to definitely make sure to get a budget in place.

you know, he needs to understand that without having some kind of limit on his borrowing and spending the that we will fall into an economic collapse. host: on the idea of reaching across the aisle, coming off of an election that kept the status thatin washington with a split congress and the president in the white house, how likely do you think there will be efforts to reach across the aisle and for the bipartisanship to happen? caller:i am hoping that both will be more open to the idea of coming to compromise is for the -- coming to compromises for the betterment of the american people.

that is their job. they need to stop being petty and stop fighting over minute, tiny details. they need to really look at what we have as our major problems. we have to start exploring the natural resources here in our country instead of relying on outside sources. we have to work on immigration and a trade. they really have to come together. because if they do not, then, you know, it is like "united we stand." if we are not united, we will fall. as a nation. host: this morning the center of the political universe during the campaign season. ohio. i want to point out, the financial times commentary this morning by phillip stevens writes and -- -- writes in --

host: we will go to joe in indiana this morning on the independent line.

what are your priorities for the present cost second term? caller: i think we need a complete overhaul of the tax code. we do don need tax deductions for the second and third and fourth homes of people. the next thing i would like to see them do is to settle down the police state. we are turning into a police state. you have too many arrests for can of us. -- for cannibus. those that cannot distinguish cannabis from heroin -- there is a big difference. i get tired of listening to the morning news and the hearing of the five, six people in these small towns equipped with dogs and swat teams. i would like to see the federal government will everything back.

-- poll everything i support normal and the other organizations. the innocence project. we have thousands of innocent people who have been convicted of murder on death row. they have released over 300 prisoners that were innocent. hardly ever do you get a prosecutor that will admit a mistake even after dna has proved this person did not rape this woman. it is our military has train the police departments to a point where this is no longer a country that call itself free. it is a farce. i do not support it. jury nullification has to be number one. host: we will keep taking your

callstakingtweets, and facebook messages. i want to point out some other news going on yesterday. the sentencing of the shooter in the tucson shifting that almost took the life of congresswoman gifford and it did take the life of several others. here is the headline from the arizona republic. there is congresswoman gabby giffords leaving the courtroom with her husband. i want to take you to the story in "the casa grande dispatch." he stared silently thursday as she came face to face with a man who tried to kill her. she had not been near him since the deadly rampage outside of a

meet and greet at a supermarket that killed six people and left her partially blind with a paralyzed right arm and a brain injury. you may have put a bullet through her head, but you have not put a dent in her spirit and commitment to make the world a better place. she looked closely at the 24- year-old for several minutes without uttering a word. he showed no emotion and his mother sobbed nearby. his guilty plea enables him to avoid a federal death sentence. we are taking your calls this morning focusing on the president's second term and the

issues you would like to see addressed. "the reno gamble" writes in -- we will go to scott from baltimore, md. on the democratic line. caller: thank you. i want to say something about the president let in all of the money go to different things that we do not need to put money to. we are supposed to be a country in debt. what are we doing? what can we not get the money back from the banks that we let them? why can we not get the money back from the car dealerships that we let them borrow to get out of debt? why can we now work out some

kind of deal where we are not going to lend any more money? we do not have the money to lend. there are different programs we need to take care of. our health care. i am on disability. i have a hard time -- i am on fixed income. when it comes down to medicare, i have a hard time getting medicare because i need medicine to take care of my life. there are a lot of people on disability that are older than i am that need this medicare. even people that our senior citizens that are 90 years old, they are on a fixed income and they only get $500 a month. they are as -- are thinking about cutting it down. you have to figure out what people are living with. my rent went up. other people's rents went up. gas, electric, and food costs. we are on a fixed income. we have to go out and buy food

that we cannot afford. if we are on a regimen from the doctors that we cannot eat regular food and we have to eat some kind of vegetables or something like that and the prices are high, how can we afford it all for $50 a month on food stamps or checks every month? host: i want to take you to a video released by the obama campaign on thursday. this is president obama getting emotional and thanking the people who worked with him. [video clip] >> you uys that have worked -- i'm really proud of that. i'm proud of you.

[applause] what you guys accomplished belongs in the annals of history. people read about it then marvel about it. the most important thing you know -- you need to know is -- what evergood we do over the next four years will pale in comparison to what you guys and accomplishing for years and years to come. host: we are talking about the issues you would like to see the president address in his second term. i went to read you a bit from

this.

at 11:00 we should note speaker john boehner, the leader of the house will hold an on-camera press briefing. that is at 11:00 a.m. we will carry that on c-span and c-span radio. some discussion about what the republican position will be heading into those negotiations. from today's edition of "the washington post." i went to. the to the front page story of --

i want to point you to the front page story of "usa today." again, that is john boehner talking about putting off some of the bigger deals until after the new year and when the new congress sets. we are talking about the next four years and what you like to see president obama address. vicki is from virginia on the republican line. caller: good morning. i would like to see a few things. maybe a flat tax. maybe they could agree on something like that. i cannot understand why the rich should pay more. i understand a lot of the

deductions. it seems like the people who do not have to do not want anyone else to have it. if you have a sucker, why should you give me your sucker? it is yours? i think it will hurt the country by doing that. i agree with all of the women's issues. i am not against that. if it is for you, it is for you. ittial birth abortions' -- needs to be cut off at some point. it is very cruel. i would like to see a transparent president like he promised. i would like to see the blame game stop. he blamed bush for four years. who can he blamed for the next four years? i would like to see our military improve instead of in taking away from it. as far as the last democrat guy, i could not believe he was

a democrat. i agree with what he said. we need to get our money back from everyone we loaned it to. it is crazy how we are giving in to other countries. there are a lot of things. i hope he changes and does what he promised in the first four years. host: vicki bringing up some military issues. the headline from the front page of "the new york times."

there is a picture of the type of predator drone that was fired on. we are discussing your priorities for the second term. we will go to the independent line. caller: i want to say i am a series an american. neither candidate understood what is going on in the middle east because they are getting one biased israel view. i can tell you what is going on. i love president assad. i stand with them. there has always been peace there. the women wear jeans, they'd drive, they vote. it is more of a democracy and a lot of ways and here. host: what do you think policy

should be regarding syria? 5000 people killed in the uprising. caller: those rebels are not syrian. they were planted there. it is really funny. when obama put troops into israel, i think he did all of this for reelection. i am relieved mitt romney did not get elected even though i did not vote for either. i think obama might do the right thing and cut ties with israel. host: we will go to a report actually on syrian president assad. this in "usa today." he said "i am not a puppet."

we have a few minutes left on the first segment of "the washington journal." we will go to pete in rhode island on the democrat line. caller: good morning. i would like to see him focus on the economy. host: specifically what part? caller: let's go with the fiscal cliff coming up. my thoughts were my belief is, and i hope somebody calls and

corrects me or you correct me, if the fiscal cliff is reached on january 1, the first thing to go would be the bust tax cuts. everything else will be phased in over time. we can let the tax cuts hit. it will then come to the table and negotiate everything else. do not paint a draconian picture of it, even though it is somewhat draconian. i think congress would sit down and negotiate a fair and proper tax code. they do that really want to go back to that. constituents will say they blocked everything for a second term. they are up for election. the election we just had spoke to a major. in this country, it is all about the taxes. host: would you be ok with a short-term bridge? caller: if you consider the fact it will not hit on january 1, everything went up. it stays-- it phases in overtime.

host: what if they had a short- term bridge to deal with this at the beginning of next year or do you want it dealt with? caller: they need to deal with it here and now. it needs to be dealt with now. the first thing to go would be the tax cuts. as far as the economy itself, to boost the economy, i think somebody needs to work on a serious tax bill. we just had hurricane sandy on the east coast. there is a perfect example where if you put people to work, but all of our wires and power lines underground. they can build the economy. i think the republicans talk a good game. they found out, america is not the america of cleavers. this is a multiracial society, and it is only getting more.

get in line, or we have seen the last of the republican party. host: thank you for the call from rhode island. a few other facebook comments this morning. budget reduction, immigration reform and education -- we will go now to seth from oklahoma on the republican line. what are your priorities for the second time? caller: right now i am a server at the hili's chain. i see polls all the time before

the presidential race. i do not make judgments. i can see an amount of people that i meet that have seen what obama has done for them. two people have college degrees and they cannot find a job. three people going to vacation all school and they cannot get in the -- they cannot get -- vocational school and they cannot get on at the air force base. the people who have no will -- they do not want to get better. they do not want to better themselves or their education. they are on the food stamps, the welfare, the obamacare. host: you want the president to continue his jobs focus from the previous four years and reform other programs?

caller: newt gingrich, i did not vote for him in the primaries, but one thing he really focused on was if you're going to be on government assistance, you need to someone better your education, better your -- you do not want to stay on it. right now with obamacare and everything i see, not being judgmental but, stating what i see three people and friends, nobody wants to get better. it went to stay on it. -- they want to stay on it. if we could go to a better >> c "washington journal" every morning. now, live for remarks from house speaker john boehner. >> to avert the fiscal cliff without raising taxes, about 24 hours after i spoke, the

congressional budget office released a report showing the most harmful consequences of the fiscal cliff come from increasing tax rates. according to ernst & young, raising the top rates would destroy nearly 700,000 jobs in our country. the members of our majority understand how important it is to avert a fiscal cliff, and that is why the house took action to replace the sequestration with other types of cuts, and why we passed a bill to extend all of the current tax rates for one year, so that we had time to overhaul our tax code. it is why high all lined irresponsible path forward -- i outlined a responsible path forward paving the way for entitlement reform and tax

reform with lower rates 2013 should be the year that we begin to solve our debt with tax reform in the entitlement reform. i propose we avert the fiscal cliff together in a manner that we insure that 2013 is the year that our government comes to grips with the problems facing this bringing jobs home, resulting in a stronger, -- facing us. bringing jobs home, results and a stronger economy, more revenue, which is what the president is seeking. this framework can lead to a common ground, and i hope the president responds in the same spirit. as i said wednesday, this is an opportunity for the president to lead, engage the congress, and work to a solution that can pass both chambers. earlier this week, we have a

short conversation. it was cordial. we both understand tried to find a way to avert the fiscal cliff is important for our country, and i am hopeful productive conversations can begin soon so that we can forge an agreement that can pass congress. with that, i will be happy to answer some questions. [indiscernible] >> if you start talking about some of this revenue, did think he will see the same problems when you start to talk about these issues? >> when the president have i -- and i have been able to come to an agreement, there has been no

problem getting it passed in the house. [indiscernible] the president did not lead l -- layout the deficit to go. what is the deficit goal the you have in mind? >> currently, the deficit is a drag on our economy, and we cannot spend money that we do not have. i did not want to box myself in the or anyone else in, but it is important to come to an agreement with the president, but this is his opportunity to lead. follow the rules. disqualified yes, sir. >> give us an idea of where you're going with that, because of tax rates are not on the

table, are you talking about going after deductions? >> there are special interest loopholes, both corporate and personal in the tax code, and it is also clear there are deductions that makes sense, and others do not. by lowering the rates, we know we will get more economic growth. it will bring jobs back to america, more revenue. we know that if we clean up the code and make it simpler, the tax code will be more efficient. the current code only collects about 85% of what is due to the government. it is clear if you have a more simple, more clear, more fair tax code, that effectiveness and efficiency increases exponentially. >> the president won reelection , more people voted for

democrats in the house than republicans. why did you have leverage? >> there is a republican majority in the house. the american people reelected a republican majority. i'm proud of the fact that our team in a difficult year was able to maintain our majority. there are a lot of races of their outstanding. it is clear that as a political party, we have work to do. we believe in individual responsibility, in power in our citizens -- and power in our citizens and the american dream. how we talk about who we are as a party is clearly a conversation that is underway and will continue. >> mr. speaker, do you plan to have a vote on the

[indiscernible] >> you would have to ask mr. kantor. >> is it fair to say you could use the raising of the debt limit as leverage on the fiscal cliff? >> it is an issue that has to be addressed sooner rather than later. >> mr. speaker, following on ofe's question, a number exit polls tuesday night said an overwhelming number of americans favored raising taxes on the wealthiest americans. would you be guided by that principle at all? >> listen, the problem with raising tax rates on the wealthiest americans is that more than half of them are small business owners. we know from ernst & young 700,000 jobs would be destroyed. we also know it would slow down our economy. the number one issue in the

election is about the economy and jobs. everybody wants to get our economy moving again and more americans back to work again. raising tax rates will slow down on our ability to create the jobs that everybody says they want. >> mr. speaker, what are you looking for on the entitlement side? restraining the growth of social security and medicare? >> listen we are spending $1 trillion more than what we take in. you cannot continue to do that. this is your two of a 25-deere demographic -- year two of the 25-year demographic bubble, and it was not like anyone could not see it coming. 23 million -- 25 million baby

boomers retire every year. it is not like there is money in the social security and medicare. this has to be dealt with. everything on the revenue side and on the spending side has to be looked at. >> mr. speaker. >> i am going to call on you. i am not blind. the young lady here at >> thank you. i wanted to go back to your remarks on immigration. when you said comprehensive immigration reform, are you endorsing a path to citizenship? >> i am not talking about a 3000-page bill, but a common- sense approach that secures our borders, and enforces the law and fixes a broken immigration system. again, on the issue this big, the president has to lead. members on both sides of the

aisle want to resolve these issues >> are you endorsing a pathway to citizenship? -- issues. >> are you endorsing a pathway to citizenship? >> i would not get into the details, but it is time to get the job done. >> >> you need to deal with the sequestered and the medicare problem and there is a context of a down payment. can you talk about what that would be? >> i don't want to talk about what that would be because i don't want to limit the options that might be available to the white house. there are a lot of ways to get there. i don't want to preclude anyone who might have a good idea about how we move forward. it is clear that we've got to fix our broken tax system and

we've got to deal with their spending problem. >> you would need to pay for the sequestered immediately text >> a nice try. [laughter] >> in bed -- does calling the tax reform appeal more to your caucus? >> we have had this discussion over the course of the last year and a half. as you all know, the president and i were attempting to deal with this months ago but their revenues on the table. you can produce revenue and revenue on the table for fixing our broken tax system, getting our economy going again, and getting more americans back to work. >> does it make it easier to sell? >> house speaker john banner

setting the storm -- setting the stage for economic reform as the house prepares to return to legislative sessions next tuesday. present obama is expected to come to the eastern this afternoon to comment on the country's economic situation and the pending fiscal cliff. after the president, will open our phone lines to hear from you and live coverage will be at 1:05 eastern. after the president, j. carter will brief reporters at 2:00 p.m. and we will have that live here on c-span as well. >> if there is a mandate in yesterday's results, it is a mandate for us to find a way to work together on solutions to the challenges we all face as a nation. my message today is not one of confrontation but one of conviction. in the weeks and months ahead, we face a series of tremendous challenges and great opportunity. >> american people want us to work together. republicans want to work together, democrats want to work together.

they want a balanced approach but especially this situation we have getting over this huge deficit and taxes are part of that. >> the newly elected congress starts work in january but the current congress still does work to do through the end of the year in what is referred to as a lame-duck session. work is expected on the impending fiscal cliff including the expiration of the bush-era tax cuts, the federal deficit, raising the debt ceiling and how much and planned cuts to domestic and military spending also known as sequestration. follow the floor debates starting tuesday with live coverage on c-span. >> more congressional reaction to this week's elections with senator chuck schumer. he said that washington has a responsibility to reverse the fiscal cliff during the upcoming lame duck session rather than putting off until next year. his remarks came during a wide- ranging breakfast conversation posted by the" christian science

monitor." this is about one hour.

>> thank you for coming. our guest tonight is charles schumer. his last visit with the group was way too long ago in 2006, when he had just led the democratic senatoral campaign into the first of two successful efforts to boost the democratic population. he graduated first in his class at his high school, which is, as readers of the almanac and american politics know, the alma mater of the social justice group. our guest graduated from harvard college and harvard law. at age 23, he won a seat at the new york assembly. he was the youngest person since teddy roosevelt. he was elected to the house. in 1998, he was elected to the

senate we he has twice-won reelection by comfortable margins. on to the thrilling matters of the process. we are on the record. please, no live blogging or tweeting. there is no embargo when the session ends, except that c-span has agreed not to air the video of the preface or post the video until noon today to give those of you who paid for the breakfast the time to file. please do the traditional thing and send me a non-threatening signal. our guests will have the opportunity to make opening comments. >> thank you. >> thank you, dave. thanks for the introduction. i just learned we have four nobel laureates. at one point, we had three u.s. senators, each of a different party. that is probably a historic first. that is myself, bernie sanders, and the republican party. when i went to minnesota to work for amy in the fall of 2006, i said, there were three madison high school graduates in the senate. i hoped to make it two more. that is what happened. i think the voters sent us a message to work together and solve bipartisan issues. they sent a signal as to what bipartisan compromise should look like in terms of our fiscal cliff. first, the signal to work together. you have an election where the house basically stayed the same as it was, and you had the president win a decisive, overwhelming victory. in the senate, we picked up seats. that is obviously saying, work together, meet half way, come

together. neither side totally ran the table and got every part. second, on the fiscal cliff, it also sent us a message that you can discern, without too much difficulty. they said, when they sent -- what does the house republican party stand for above all? cut government spending. reduce government spending. the house was reelected. on the democratic side, they sent a message that part of the fiscal compromise should be revenues. the president campaigned up to the last day. one of his major planks of his platform was revenues, raise taxes, or do not let taxes go down on the wealthy. most of our senate candidates

campaigned on that as well. in the debate, mitt romney actually shied away from the republican position of not to do it, as you saw, particularly in the second and third debates. it is clear they said, go to a compromise, get a handle on spending, but raise some revenues, particularly on the wealthiest people. many republicans were hoping, they said, this election will be a referendum on revenues. i hope our republican colleagues take that to heed. in 2010, there was a clear message -- cut spending. we took that message to heart. we cut $900 billion out of spending, mainly domestic confectionery spending.

greek -- discretionary spending. that was the electoral message. we hope our colleagues take that to heart. if there is not too much dispute about the tax side, the president campaigned on it, 60% of those on the exit polls said they were for raising taxes or tax rates on the top earners to fix the deficit. i was heartened on the tones speaker boehner said in his remarks. he said the president won the election. he said he should lead. he said, he was open to revenues. i thought the tone was the right thing.

turn on a dime in 24 hours and embrace everything. higher taxes on the wealthy, but i think privately, he has seen the handwriting on the wall. it makes me very hopeful that we can do something big in the next months ahead. it is a good first step. i would say two first things. when you unpack the speaker's speech, there is a premise that does not quite work. we will have to help him move others in the republican party away from it. part of his speech, he talked about dynamic score. -- scoring. it is about cutting taxes to increase revenues. it is about time we debunk that myth. it is a fairytale.

rumpelstiltskin was the fairy tale figure who turned straw into gold. it was a lovely thing, but a fairy tale. when you look at the studies that are put out by almost all economists, it has not happened, it does not work, and even if you still believe it works, the bottom line is the jcp will not score it. --jct will not support it. i do not want the grand agreement to fail on this basis of dynamic scoring, which does not score and does not work, as i said. it is the rumpelstiltskin tax fairy tale that if you cut taxes, it will increase revenues. it is like saying, raise spending on medicare and that will increase revenues. it just does not work. it is time to debunk it once and for all.

the second point is that the speaker is going to need some help in bringing his colleagues along to a good position on revenues. i am very hopeful that help will come from the business community. in the past, the business community, which is a republican, basically has sort of stayed away from the fiscal debates. but now, there is real evidence involved. my colleague has done a lot of involved. i talked to five or six business leaders over the past few weeks. almost to a person, they say, we are fine with our rates staying at 35%. we are willing to see them going up to 39%. provided that it is part of a

real deficit reduction package that avoids the fiscal cliff. i hope they step up to the plate and be the counter-veiling force. when the republicans hint they will do this, all they hear from is grover norquist and those opposed to it. i believe the white house will reach out to the business community and utilize and work with them on this common goal. like we have never seen before. two other quick points. i think the tea party has peaked and is on the descent. if you look at the elections, that is pretty clear. first, some major tea party figures lost. business community and utilize andjoe wao congress members who ran on the

tea party platform lost. alan west, it looks like he is losing. todd akin and richard murdock lost. they are a little bit -- they process. even michelle bachmann and nearly lost. in 2010, they came on a wave. many of them were surprised they won. in 2012, they had a fight for election in a much more divided electorate. i think they have learned. i think we will see a lot of the tea party saying, "let's repeal obamacare," will play much less prominence in these two years. that is a good thing. they were for obstruction. finally, karl rove's reputation

will take a significant hit. i saw him on tv the night of the election at 2:00 in the morning. his excuse was in every swing state, we have decreased obama's margin. i am sure he said, put up these millions of dollars and we can still win, but we will decrease his margins. not much of a relief. let's hope -- i do not think crossroads will be as much of a player two years from now. i think his reputation took a hit. i am ready for questions. >> let me pick up on what you were saying about the impact. does it cause you to reassess

the possible damage or the impact of citizens united? >> i was thinking, what is my greatest surprise in the election? what i say here is i am hopeful it has paved the way for some reform. i think threei think republicans saw it as a mixed blessing. sometimes, the super pacs are not doing what people want them to do, such as backing richard murdock. -- such as backing richard lugar. having said that, the influence of money is still pernicious, bad, and i would hope that reform of financial

contributions would be something high up on the agenda in 2013. i would hope we can get bipartisan support for at least the disclosure part of it. which many of our colleagues on the other side have been for in the past. >> what about>> revenue to avoid a fiscal cliff. ? you talked about boehner. "we need revenues, but to agree on the high-end people." does it matter where it comes from? >> yes. absolutely. the most failing fact of our -- the most salient fact of our political economy in the last decade is that middle-class incomes have declined. that accounts for a lot of what happens in 2008, 2010, and 2012. it is a debate at the core. to say that revenues should come from the middle class, that

we should increase revenues on the middle class, is something i think would be wrong. i think we should find revenues from people who make above $250,000. i think that is the right way to go. it does matter. one of the problems with so- called tax reform, at least 1986-style tax reform, and i talked about this in a speech i gave, is that if you are going to reduce rates significantly, even to simpson-bowl levels, and you want to get $4 trillion overall in deficit reduction, over 10 years, you cannot do it without raising middle-class taxes. we do not want to do that. it matters very much where they come from. that will be one of the issues that come up in terms of the fiscal cliff. boehner's tone was good. when you look inside and say,

we can rely on dynamic scoring, when you begin to dissect that, it has some problems. i am hopeful that with the business community's help, and with the president's leadership, we can bring the republicans around. i think in his heart, speaker boehner wants to get something done. >> [indiscernible] 3 numbers [indiscernible] do you have a strategy for trying to pass the middle class tax [indiscernible] cuts? are you trying to do that [indiscernible] to [indiscernible] >> the general thrust of your question. i think most of our colleagues say the senate needs to be

fixed, that there is something wrong with it. there will be a lot of discussions about that over the next few weeks. i will not comment on specifics until we have those discussions. it needs to be done not just for one particular issue, but in general, to get the senate working better. >> [indiscernible] >> any agreement, because we have to pass things in the house and senate, has to be bipartisan. it will not be a hurdle. by definition, it will be bipartisan. we will have to have 60 votes. [applause] [laughter] >> sorry about the noise. >> that is okay.

this is just fine. i would say you need a bipartisan solution. it will have to be truly bipartisan for the obvious reason that it has to pass the senate, a majority democrat, and it has to pass the house, a majority republican. >> republicans still say boehner [indiscernible] >> speak up a little? >> republicans will still demand dollar for dollar cuts. for every dollar in increase in borrowing. what is a strategy for dealing? >> that will not work. that is a no revenue strategy. it will not produce a compromise. it is a no-revenue strategy. produce a compromise, either. >> the cost of living is high. the $250,000 part income per family is not a lot of money. do you think the president is flexible on that number? $500,000 or $1 million?

>> everyone knows my position million mark. the main point is not whether it is $1 million or $250,000. whether that is going to be on the table in terms of where you draw the line in the negotiation, i just cannot tell. >> can you get the revenues you need? do you have to raise the income revenues you need? >> if you reduce the rates, you cannot get the revenues you need to get significant deficit reduction without hurting the middle class, as i said. that is the real problem. beginning deficit reduction by saying the first thing we will

do on the tax side is lower the rates it is like saying the first thing we will do on the entitlement side is reduce the age at which you are entitled to medicare. it is intuitively counterproductive. it is counterproductive. if you kept them at 35%, it is still much harder to do. but, obviously, there will be compromises. the president's view, my view, and the overwhelming view we ran on and succeeded on, is let the rate go to 39.6% for the highest-end people. >> one of the earliest questions was, despite your optimism about speaker boehner, when he is talking about revenues and the democrats are talking about changing the rates, they are

talking about two different things. that is only for the speaker. [indiscernible] that is not even for his caucus. that is only part of the question. in addition to that, it is pretty clear they are talking about basically figuring out a way for next year and wrapping it in as part of the tax reform. if that is the house attitude, how you deal with it now? with the idea of doing nothing and letting the bush tax cuts expire. and then have a tax cut bill. does that make any sense? >> to me, and i have said this before, the best thing to do is come up with a so-called grand bargain in the lame-duck session. that is when people have the dual knives, taxes and

sequestration. to me, trying to get this done as soon as possible, as broadly as possible, as deeply as possible, makes the most sense. i would be adverse to any strategy. i think it is preferable to get it done now than to say we will get it done over the next year. the tone of speaker boehner's comments indicates the door is open. i do not expect total change in one day. >> brian. >> hi. two questions.

what do you see the senator doing in her second term? do you see her as a possible chair? or someone else? number two, what is the situation in new york? a lot of people lost their flood insurance. on the south shore of long island in the past. the program is under water, so to speak, in the red. do you see people in new york losing out on getting money to rebuild their homes? do you see the program being overhauled as a result of what happened? >> i do not think -- it is the day after the election. i do not know what will happen. you have to ask people, including the senator, whether she would want it. i have not talked to her about

it. we talked about elections and congratulations. she did a great job in the senate in the first six years. and we will do a great job in the next six years. we just talked about elections. she did a great job in the first six years and she will do a great job in the next six years. i am glad to have her as a partner. obviously, we have huge damage in new york. it is incredible. i flew by helicopter, the first day, with the mayor. the next day with the governor. you saw how broad the damage was. it was not just one or two communities, but spread out all over a huge metropolitan area. for five days after that, i spent time on the ground and you saw how deep it was. grown men crying in my arms. everything wiped out. the home, the car, everything.

if you do not know what to do or what is going to happen. we do not know yet what percentage of the people -- much of the flooded areas are in a flood zone, where flood insurance is required. many of the people who require that flood insurance still did not have it. how we are going to deal with we have to face. will the flood insurance be adequate for the people who are there? those who pay flood insurance have a legal, binding commitments from the government to pay it. that is going to happen. we have to come up with the dollars for that. we do not know the numbers yet. some people estimate that over 100,000 homes are unlivable. that is probably 300,000 people, the size of a major american city. we just do not know yet. waterlogged.

it takes a house-by-house inspection to determine and we do not know yet. how it has to be changed, there has been a lot of discussion about that. it is one of the things we will have to look at in the aftermath. >> the makeup of the senate changed significantly with this election. i am not talking about democrat or republican, but the election of women, the most in history. can you talk about what that means for society and the senate future? >> is great for political and substantive reasons. i preferred women candidates. in the four years when i was head of the dfcc, we increased the number of democrats on the women's side by 4.

the 2 who won in 2006 won again, each by double digits. claire won by 16, some very high i don't know if she won by 20 or 30 but she won by some amount and claire won by 16 i think it is. some very high number. much higher than you would have imagined. she told me and i forgot. >> 15. >> 15 or 16. so we've made good progress. now i believe a political person, somebody he's ron the dscc for years. the electorate wants people to compromise and come together and women are very good at doing that in the senate. and so i'd like to see more. now we're only at -- we're

still a total number i think of 19, right? 16 democrats. 20. and women are 52% of the population, so we have a long way to go. but i think it's good for the country and breaking glass ceilings and it's good for the senate in terms of having both diversity and people who are really outstanding senators and have special -- i agree with senator gillibrand that more women in the senate would probably make the place more willing to compromise. >> back to our fiscal issues here. a couple things. i spoke with a democratic congressman yesterday who for the first time expressed some admiration for simpson-bowles, and i'm wondering if you would share those sentiments or if you have another, you know, grand bargain framework that you think would be better overall. and secondly, how far are you willing to go on entitlements?

>> first, simpson-bowles. i think simpson-bowles did the country a real service in three basic ways. one, in coming up with a balanced package that had revenues. we can, you know, around the edges you can dispute whether it was too little in revenues or whether the $900 billion in cuts we've done already changed the balance but the basic balanced approach was the right way to go. second, i thought the $4 trillion number is just about the right number for us to shoot for. i think they chose it because it turns the fiscal cliff around. in other words, deficits go down rather than up once you do $4 trillion of deficit reduction. most importantly they brought democrats and republicans together, which despite the hope of both democrats and republicans, might not be necessary in 2013 is for the reasons i mentioned in my opening remarks about the need, the public wants us to compromise somewhere in the middle. so i think they did those

things. as you know i disagree with simpson-bowles on bridging that -- bringing the top rate down from 35. they had it anywhere from 23 to 28. as i said, the mathematics doesn't work unless you're going to hurt the middle class, which is a bad idea. so that's the place where i agree and the president disagrees with simpson-bowles on that, and i think the election basically -- the electorate agreed with us. i do think we believe we have a mandate on that issue. but overall the simpson-bowles basic structure is the right way to go. second question was -- look, it has to be a balanced approach, and that means had a entitlements are on the table. medicare and medicaid. i agree with leader reid. social security, even when simpson-bowles included it in their package, they didn't add it to deficit reduction, because any changes you make in social security that bring in revenues stay in the social security system. so i think that while social

security has to be reformed and saved, left it with medicare and medicaid and i think it's better to treat the two separately. i signed that letter, the 29 democrats signed it saying treat it differently. but on medicare and medicaid, look, here's what i say about medicare and it applies to medicaid as well. medicare delivers excellent health care very inefficiently. and the trick is to continue to deliver the excellent health care but do it more efficiently. acab began to make some changes in that regard, and we're seeing the system adapt to those changes in a way that kept health care costs from rising. i don't think it's just the recession. i think that health care costs risen less because of the anticipation of 2014 and the implementation of a.c.a. and i think that will continue, but there's a lot more you can bring out of the system, the

efficiencies and that is where we ought to go. i don't believe you have to change the basic structure of medicare, as paul ryan -- medicaid, as paul ryan does. i think you can find great, great savings by working the inefficiencies. anyone that's gone through it knows the inefficiencies in the system. they're just incredible. >> excuse me. john. >> speaker boehner yesterday talked about not increasing tax rates on small businesses. so if that framework could be accomplished, what kind of revenues could be raised within that framework, from your point of view? and could you consider the limit on the value of deductions that the president had in his budget? >> well, first, in terms of small businesses, how do you define a small business and that's again one of the sort of slippery slopes a little bit. do you define a multibillion dollar entertainment company, sports team or hedge fund as a

small business because their structure happens to be a business structure? and so i think there's -- i think everyone agrees what we really mean when we say small business, what the typical voter envisions when we mean small business, the local dry cleaner, the manufacture who has 50 people making widgets and stuff like that, nobody thinks they should have their taxes raised. if it's used as sort of code for saying other people who were very, very wealthy and large businesses and don't fit the traditional definition of small business then i think that's a different issue, but i think we can agree on mainstream small businesses not agreeing to adding businesses. and ones can he find in the way i say are not small businesses, 97% are not taxed under our plan. in terms of haircuts on deductions for the very wealthy is something on the table. the president put it on the table. there will be a lot of discussion about it, but certainly if you want to get

to, say, $1.5 trillion goal, you cannot take that off the table. it's an important -- it's an important part of the discussion. >> lisa. >> i think now that speaker boehner made his first offer and opened the discussion, when do you think it is appropriate and expected that the president would come forward on the fiscal cliff? and what do you think is expected from the white house? >> well, first, i think we know where the president is. he's put together a plan that deals with the fiscal cliff in his budget. he's done some things that are not popular, even with some of the democratic constituentses. but we know where he is. and -- constituencies. but we know where he is. it's not a question of, where does the president stand, it's a question of figuring out the compromise that can get enough votes in the house, enough

votes in the senate and the president's signature to actually happen. i think the president, i know he's worked hard on this. i've talked opeople in the white house as recently as last night about some of these things, and so i think that, you know, i think you're going to see the president actively engaged right away. and speaker boehner obviously opened the door, as i said. again, the tone of his speech was very encouraging. i don't think he has a plan. i don't think that speech was a plan in any sense of the word, but it certainly opens the door. in terms of the one thing as i said i believe the president will do, and i think it's going to make a difference, i cannot stress the importance of this enough is getting the business community involved. particularly on the revenue side. because i talked to a lot of my republican colleagues who i think want to come to the -- come to an agreement, and they just don't hear anything on the

republican -- on the other side from the -- from mainstream republicans when they -- on the revenue side. the only voice out there is grover nor quist types. -- morequist types. -- norquist types. >> [inaudible] what is the process to get that point? is there a concern -- is there a concern that the white house, to cut a deal with the republicans [inaudible] >> well, look, there are going to be -- when you have so-called grand bargain there will be people on both sides of the aisle not completely happy. the idea is to get as many happy as possible. certainly 60 of them happy in the senate and 218 happy of them in the white house. as i said it has to be bipartisan. that is, you know, by definition there.

again, whether the right strategy is for the president to lay out a detailed plan, i'm not sure it is. the president -- everyone knows where the president stands. as i said, he's had a great deal of detail on a plan, and so the question is doing two things. one, beginning discussions. and as i said, speaker boehner opened up the door to those yesterday. in what way, in what form i wouldn't venture to guess. second, mobilizing support on the republican side for a plan that actually does produce revenues. >> so you think it will most likely -- >> i won't say most likely, less likely. i think i'm not going to get into the details of how it should be done. i think both sides have to start talking soon and i think they will. >> paul. >> for the sake of argument,

let's envision a process in which you guys do get some grand deal and by the middle of next year it's actually passed. then what? what is the democratic agenda? >> ok. that's a great question. >> what's defined the democrats as they look at 2016. >> ok. i think something we have to really do is immigration reform. i'm chairman of the immigration subcommittee. again, i am optimistic. a little bit of a mirror image like the fiscal cliff. i think there are a large number of republicans who want to actually -- who understand that the anti-immigrant position -- no immigration. we couldn't even pass a stem bill through the house because the republican caucus said you can't have no net increase in any immigrants. and i think that position hurt them in the election and even somebody like john cornyn has said that and he's pretty smart about -- he's very conservative but he comes from texas and he's a republican.

you know, he's a conservative republican. and he sees the handwriting on the wall. i think the election gave great momentum to immigration reform because it showed republicans that they cannot succeed electorally if they continue such a harsh anti-immigration policy. again, it's like tax reform. we basically have the outlines. the outlines are pretty much contained in the proposal that senator graham and i laid out and brought structure -- >> 2007. >> yeah. last time and what happened was obviously the other side of the aisle said we're not doing immigration reform. i think they're going to want to do it now. that's at the top of the list. because the nation demands it, needs it and, again, i think in the exit polls, 2/3 of americans basically agreed with the concept of real immigration reform. along those lines. you know, wasn't in any detail in an exit poll, but the basic thrust of the question would lead you to believe they would

agree with that proposal. second thing we have to do, both candidates, president obama, governor romney talked about making us more energy independent. there are a lot of things we can do that might lead to compromise. first, two things have been done by the administration that people forget about. the cafe standards when fully implemented will reduce the need of importing oil for gasoline. isn't that incredible? and the greenhouse gas standards have really changed the way power plants have to function. that plus the free market force of the decline in natural gas prices have led to real change there. but there are lots of other things i think we can do in bipartisan compromise. senator she houston and senator portman have been spending a lot of time on energy efficiency. and that would be along the lines of what the -- the state that has the lowest per capita consumption of energy in america when it comes to nontransportation, you'll never

guess. who wants to guess? california. who would have thought. >> i would have thought new york. >> exactly. because of subwaist. but this is nontransportation. -- because of subways. but this is nontransportation. 40% of our energy consumption is hvac. heating and cooling buildings, build they be residential, commercial or factory. 35% is transportation. and california in 1978 passed building standards under then governor brown who was known partially for this in the doons burry as governor moonbeam but he got it passed. so every building in california had energy standards and it's made california very efficient. these are the kinds of things -- i said portman and sheheen

have been compromising. my view, katrina -- sorry -- sandy gave some impetus to dealing with climate change. and i said in new york we're going to pay for climate change one way or another. we can pay for it after each natural disaster. we in new york have had 50 -- sorry -- we have had 300 or -- sorry. phrasing it wrong. we have had in the last three or four years we have had once in a hundred year disasters with irene, with sandy. and so, you know, i think it will give some impetus to deal with climate change, but even if we can't reach compromise on that, there's lots of things in energy that we can reach compromise on and that will be on the agenda. and the fourth thing i'd put on the agenda i talked about earlier in reference to your question, dave. maybe we can get some real

financial reform. i think republicans are beginning to rethink super pacs because they haven't produced the positive results they hoped for and negative results that they hadn't expected. >> yes, sir. >> if a deal is reached before the end of the year, as you hope, does that remove the need for tax reform, more comprehensive tax reform next year? >> my view, and i said this, is that corporate tax reform should be treated separately. why? because to make corporate tax reform work you should not have revenue increases. and, you know, you're putting tax reform as part of the fiscal cliff as a way to getting increases as what i said a few weeks ago. i think it's easier said than done. but -- so i think we should do corporate tax reform. senator baucus and senator hatch have talked about that and i think you're going to see under senator baucus' leadership, the finance committee start looking at that. we've had a lot of hearings on it already but really looking

seriously at that issue. in terms of individual stacks reform, well, it depends how the overall package comes out. you could -- i'm not saying this will happen -- but i think you come to anywhere between $1 trillion and $1.2 trillion in revenues by letting the top rate above 250 go to 39.6 and let the estate tax go to 45 and -- 45% and $3.5 million floor. then you'd still probably want to do some tax reform but maybe as part of this deal some tax, some loophole closings will happen. it's too early to tell. certainly i think tax reform is part of the agenda. it just can't be -- i still stand by everything obviously that i've said before that it's hard -- easier said than done. particularly if you want to protect the middle class when it comes to doing it as part of

deficit reduction. >> david. >> senator, if you're interested in raising more revenue from upper income americans and avoiding hitting the middle class, the biggest single item for upper income americans is the prefrpbl rates of capital gains -- preferencial rates of capital gains. is it time to put that on the table? >> i did do that in a speech a couple of weeks ago. >> [inaudible] >> certainly i believe the rates should not go up to the same as -- if we're going to raise the top rate of people above $250,000 to $39.5 million, capital gains and dividends should not go that high. i prefer preferential. so i believe there is some differential. this is the problem with the simpson-bowles compromise, not in substance but in reality, i haven't seen a single -- i've

seen many, many republicans say they would not be for raising it even above the 15 and i haven't seen a single one say they would be willing to raise it except by implication that people have signed the simpson-bowles agreement where it went up to 28 when tax revenues went down to 28. but i think that's going to be difficult. i think we could get a -- i think we could settle on a differential, but i think that's one of the issues that our other side colleagues have to think about. >> janet. >> senator [inaudible] i wonder what you heard or have you heard anything from senator mcconnell on what his role will be. >> i hope he and speaker baners, in most things they work together, and i guess on fiscal reform, senator -- speaker boehner has taken the lead. but my view is if that --

again, if we hear some voices from the mainstream republicans in the country, particularly business, it would make it a lot easier for senator mcconnell to come to an agreement -- come to part of that agreement. >> sam. >> a broad question on how you see the democratic party entering this phase of governance. >> i'll answer the second question first. i think democrats, we've -- you know, why for instance -- i think we've gotten much better at focusing both our policies and our message on middle class folks. i think we understand the dilemma that the middle -- the middle class -- just take a step back. you know, the american dream is

so much part of us. you know, i like to say that beautiful lady in the harbor in the city in which i live holds a torch. that's the american dream of every american and to most people in the world. what does that mean? very simply, if you work hard, the odds are you will be doing better 10 years from now than you are doing today. and the odds are your kids will do better than you. it's a beautiful dream. it's part of one of the -- of what america is about. it declined. and we've been to address it on the democratic side. and i think that's why we had the success that we had in -- on tuesday. i think people felt the republicans were not addressing it. all the polls show who more has your values? who's more looking out for you? who's looking out for the middle class? a wide gap remains between president obama and governor romney. that to me might be the number one reason that under difficult circumstances the president did as well as he did. and so i think that's where

we're going to be. i think we are a party. i think one of the reasons we lost in 2010 is average voters said they don't care about us. they're focused on other things, and i think we corrected that very well at both ends of pennsylvania avenue in 2012 and that accounted to more than just about anything else for our electoral success. that's going to continue. i think there's going to be a relentless focus on helping the middle class grow. and if the middle class doesn't grow, it's a different america, both economically and politically and even socially. >> have you negotiated are the republicans -- [inaudible] >> look, we've readjusted. i think usually political forces are very powerful. they're almost like sandy, but hopefully in a positive sense, and that is, you know, we -- there was a lot of resistance to going along with spending

cuts in 2011 and 2012, but the political forces sort of dictated that happening based on the 2010 elections. i think the same thing is now happening on the inverse way on the republican side. fiscal cliff and immigration, the people who lead the republican party, the smart people, except for the idea -- ideologues, know their position helped paint the picture, helped create the situation where they lost the election and they're going to have to change. so i think we're going to find our republican colleagues more willing to compromise and deal. i think we're going to find that they realize that obstruction did not work. will there be a group of republicans who are still for obstruction? yes. i think as i said they will have less power in 2012. so i think you're going to see the 2013-2014 session of congress and relations between

the republicans in the white house be better, considerably better than they were in 2011 and 2012, and that's why i thought the tone of speaker boehner -- that's what i think one of the things the tone of speaker boehner indicated. >> we have about two -- >> look, everyone agrees that there has to be some kind -- you know, that the economy's still moving slowly and we need some kind of stimulus. it's certainly on the table. that is part of a grand bargain in the first year, second year, there would be some kind of stimulus. >> we got about three minutes left and we got two new york institutions that need to ask questions. we are going to start with tom. >> he is a new york institution. >> and we're going to go to the last question will be from tom from "newsday." tom, frank first. >> given the fact that senator mcconnell is one of the

republican leaders you talked about, why was his statement so tonely different from boehner? is it because he's worried about a challenge in january to -- or is he worried about a challenge when he's up for re-election in 2014? >> look, i think senator mcconnell is -- you know, we disagreed on a whole lot of issues, but he's very good at reading the political wins. i think he will in this case. >> and to end. >> we're talking about all these spending cuts and ways of shrinking government a little bit, you know, just recently the nor'easter blew out more power. 60,000 more people on long island without power again. are you considering a supplemental to help new york, and how is this going to work with another kind of northeast

special issue, how is that going to fit in? >> i am going to be a little broader on this. you know, disaster relief has been a federal government responsibility for a long time. this isn't brand new. it's been here for i think close to a century. with the wisdom that when, you know, god's way hits a community that the local community, even a large local community like new york or new jersey can't handle it on its own. and so the whole theme of disaster relief is the federal government should provide the resources, but the localities should implement it. ok. and i saw irene a couple years ago which mainly affected upstate and sandy which mainly affected downstate. fema is much improved. first step, we have the money, at least, to deal with it immediately. you may remember with irene, there was no money in fema.

it delayed relief. the good thing is democrats and republicans in the budget agreement came together and said we'll put $7.2 trillion into fema, and then you could add another $4 billion and change that you wouldn't go against the spending cuts. so there's really significant money there. will that be enough? i don't believe it will be, and there are other areas that are very much needed in disaster relief. transportation, cdbg, flood insurance that have to be looked at as well. so the likelihood is at some point we will need some more help, but it's not holding us up in any way now, and that's one of the things we're examining. the good news here is that it is, you know, we do have the desire for help on a bipartisan basis. governor chris christy. so i think on -- governor

christie. relief, we thought about this a couple years ago, and those believe the federal government has to step up to disaster relief prevailed. i'm very optimistic that that coalition bipartisan will continue. >> most republicans have said in the past just briefly that there should may be a dollar-to-dollar cut. should it not be tied to any kind of -- >> absolutely. the reason is very simple. if you're starting to -- you're going to delay the relief. you know, the quicker you do relief, the cheaper it gets, the quicker the recovery, and i that i that would be a mistake and that was the argument a year and a half ago and for a while it held up fema funding, which, as i said, made it harder to solve or to get the dollars needed immediately in the aftermath of irene. i think the argument that we shouldn't do that prevailed then, and i think it will continue to prevail. >> i want to thank senator schumer for doing this. i want to thank you for getting

it together. appreciate it. >> thank you. i'm going to have a little cold eggs. >> yeah. sorry. >> there is a mandate for us to find a way to work to gather on the solutions to the challenges we all face as a nation. by message today is not one of confrontation, a conviction. in the weeks and months ahead, we face a series of tremendous challenges and great opportunity. >> the american people want us to work together. democrats want us to work together. they want a balanced approach, but especially the situation we have kidding over the huge deficit and taxes are part of that.

>> the newly elected congress starts work in january but the current congress still has work to do to the ended the year and what is referred to as the lame- duck. fiscal cliff, including the expiration of the bush era tax cuts, federal deficit, raising the debt ceiling and by how much. planned cuts to domestic and military spending. followed the floor debate starting tuesday with life house coverage on c-span and the senate on c-span2. president obama expected to come to the east room this afternoon to address the nation for the first time since the end of campaign 2012. his expected to comment on the country's economic situation, the impending fiscal cliff. we will open up our phone lines. live coverage starting at 1:05 eastern here on c-span. following, jay carney will brief reporters at 2:00 p.m. eastern, live for you here on c-span.

right now, a discussion on the future of the republican party on this morning's ""washington journal." host host: three days removed from us for a look back at campaign republican party. thank you for being here. why did he lose a race that so many thought coming into the election was his to win? guest: including me. this was more of a race i have to say that obama won by having such a strong campaign rather than romney losing. obama may have been the only democratic candidate running on a record of a weak economy and debt crisis that we face and still win. yet, he did. they did very many things that were right. you can point to a couple of things with mitt romney. he may not have been the

perfect candidate for 2012 given his corporate turnaround background, secondly, he did not get something republicans have counted on and that is the white working-class voters. in states like ohio, the ads attacking mayor romney as a corporate raider and buccaneer that went on for many months put on by the obama campaign seemed to work. the white working-class vote did not turn out for mitt romney in the numbers he needed. host: you had a piece yesterday, "the survivor in chief." you know to that they expose the myth of the enthusiastic democratic voter. guest: it was a myth i subscribe to for a while. i am sure you read about this over and over again. the democratic voters were dispirited and they were not

feeling enthusiastic about the campaign. it was the conservatives and republicans fired up and getting ready to go. the notion was, he would have this surge of republican voters and a depressed democratic turnout. there was a pretty good turn out of republican voters, but there was a surge of democratic voters. it was amazing how well obama did at putting together the coalition that elected him in 2008. the idea of a lack of enthusiasm would keep them from voting did not happen. it turned out to be a myth. if you are an enthusiastic voter or unenthusiastic voter, you only get one vote. host: was there and over confidence born from how well republicans did in the midterm elections? guest: there was an expectation that republicans really had a good chance of ousting president obama.

that became harder to expect as we got really deeper into the campaign, particularly this fall. it was boosted again by his performance in the first debate. the truth is, i would not say there was ever over confidence that was going to happen. host: we are talking to fred barnes. you can join in with questions and comments. the phone numbers are on the screen for you to start calling in now. i want to take you to this editorial in "the baltimore sun." the headline is "diversity and the gop." guest: when you lose 50% to 48%, i would not call that a lopsided loss.

it was a pretty close election. mitt romney lost by 2.5 million of votes. that is not a squeaker, but it is not lopsided either. i think there are two birds that are very important that republicans have not done well in. the obvious one is hispanics. host: 71% of hispanics for obama. guest: when you go from getting 44% of the hispanic vote to 31% at john mccain in got to 27% that mitt romney got, that is a bad situation for republicans. when you have the group of growing faster than any other group as part of the electorate and you are shrinking in your share of the vote, that is a big problem. this is one republicans are going to have to deal with. the other groups -- obama did

not do well among the white women. the number is a little distorted because so many are hispanic women. an african-american woman that may be voting for the democrats for other reasons. host: exit polls show that female voters went 55% to 45%. guest: we have a gender gap a denture every election except for 2010. and republicans came out even. in presidential elections they have not done well. 11 points is a lot. we will have to think about doing better. i think you do better when you have better candidates. host: talk about the third part of the editorial, the young voters. guest: when they get older, they become more conservative. i do not mean to be dismissive about that. one of the surprises about the obama campaign was how well

they turned out the young vote. i think it was almost the same share of the electorate as it was in 2008. i did not think that was going to happen, and yet it did. republicans are going to have to think more about how they are going to get the vote. here is another place where i think republicans really need to do better. it used to be a place where they did very well. that is the suburbs. obama did extremely well in the suburbs. i have lived in the suburbs across the potomac river. i grew up in arlington. those are inner suburbs. they have become very democratic. a republican is not going to windows. -- a republican is not going to win those. as you get further out, that becomes the republican heartland. he when virginia if you get over 40% of fairfax county.

romney got 39%. in the exurbs where republicans have done so well up until they have had to face obama twice obamain loudoun county, 25 miles outside of washington, d.c., obama got 52%. he got 57% in prince william county. republican governors, the governor who was elected bob mcdonnell in 2009, one of those areas. mitt romney and john mccain did very poorly. the suburbs is a place where republicans are going to have to do better. host: you have used the word turn out. is the democratic turnout operation simply better than the republican operation? guest: i think you had it right. it is the obama turn out. host: does that go away? republicans guest: can hope so.

i am sure the democratic party has figured out, we have to repeat this. we have seen what the obama camping can do. we are going to do it again. republicans, they had a much better effort by the party. i had a turnout party by conservative groups that made millions of calls. it did not produce what they hoped it would. they got a lot of voters out, but obviously not enough. host: i want to take you to a clip of a conservative writer talking about what needs to happen with the republican party. [video clip] >> the republican national chairman, mitch mcconnell, john boehner, and other republican leaders behind the epic election failure of 2012 should be replaced with leaders more in tune with the conservative base of the republican party.

likewise, established republican consultants establishedkarl rove, romney campaign senior advisers, and pollsters should never be hired to run or consult on a national campaign again. nobody would give a dime to the ineffective super pacs like american crossroads. the loss was the death rattle of the establishment republican party. the disaster of 2012 signals the beginning of the battle to take over the republican party and the opportunity to establish the gop as the party of small government, constitutional conservative. host: do you agree with that assessment? guest: not at all. k i do karl rove, the pollster for the romney campaign, and all the

others he listed, the republican national chairman -- they are not the problem. the truth is, while i think the tea party is a great addition to the party, the candidates who were truly identified as tea party candidates in 2010 and 2012 lost in many cases. i do not think it was a problem the republican candidates were inadequately conservative, and they were in many cases not good candidates. it helps to have good candidates, people who can run graces. not those who can flub an abortion issue. and by stumbling on the abortion issue and the idea of rape, they lost those races.

host: the stat on the senate races of the 23 democratic seats in play republicans won one and the party further managed to lose three more of its own seats and the chamber, not one democratic incumbent lost a seat. one calls it the g.o.p.'s epic senate fail. >> i don't know about epic, but it certainly was a fail. host: was john cornyn to blame on this? guest: he is not to blame but he will get a lot of the blame. i mean, he didn't put words in the mouth of todd about women who had been raped and in indiana when he flubbed the same issue. so he is not really the problem but the guy at the head of the senate republican campaign committee.

so he is going to take both the swings and the arrows. host: randy, you're on with fred barnes. caller: good morning mr. barnes. i really don't want the republican to be in -- never mentioned the republican party coming to the black vote or the asian vote. 2014 is a -- republicans will work with barack obama because they want to be elected again, because this country cannot stay this way. host: fred barnes? guest: i agree with that, that republicans are going to work with president obama and will he have to work with them.

even ronald regan had the iran contra scandal and bill clinton did have impeachment. so they are really tough and in your administration your best people, your first team you have on your staff and in cabinet positions in your first term, many of them go away in your second term so it's one where democrats and republicans are going to have to come together especially on the fiscal issue. we know what will happen. we will have huge spending cuts in defense and it will go into effect january 1 or the bush tax cuts will expire as of january is so they will have to do one of two things, either have a stopgap measure and let the next congress and president obama work out something over the entire year of 2013, tax reform measure and so on or they are going to have to act in the lame duck session.

this is not ducking the issue but knocking it over to the new congress that had just been elected and the president who was re-elected and let them work it out in a very comprehensive way in 2013. host: mr. barnes the lopsided percentage african-americans 93%. what's the g.o.p. plan to reach out to them like latinas and women? >> the g.o.p. has had plans to reach out that have been utter failures. the best thing they won't have to face barack obama again. republicans are the conservative party and that's not going to change. i think what they need to do and this was an unimportant to election in a couple of ways. they need to elect more

african-american republicans and a couple of them -- a big hope was a woman named mia love who was the mayor of a town, african-american mormon and they hoped she would win and she lost. in utah. and i would say mathison is one of the most conservative democrats in congress, and ran a great race and won and then allen west, a republican in florida is behind. it's going to be tough for him to win because they are not threw counting ballots. but that's one of the things they need to do is have more african-american candidates and have them win. host: republicans needing blacks and latinas in the party leadership not merely a voting block to be captured and used? >> yes.

and they have done much better with hispanics than -- well, certainly didn't show in the election but in the house j.c. watts from oklahoma but indeed they need to do that. host: we'll go to joanne on the republican line from rancho, california. caller: fred, don't you think since 2010 was such a big victory, everything of concern was of obama care and that didn't seem to be brought up in the campaign so much probably because of massachusetts. but i think he still could have used concerns about that, particularly for religious liberty which is very important to hispanics and asians, which we lost big. i don't know if it's because of what john roberts did which was

devastating, because i do think there's a lot of charity and hidden taxes in obama care that people are not aware of and in the next four years we know the president can use executive orders and i think a huge decisive victory. guest: when you get to a question i'm going to agree with you. i think you're right about obama care. correct me if i'm wrong on this. i think the exit poll showed by a narrow margin most wanted to change or repeal obama care. and it wasn't sufficiently hammered away by republicans in 2012. they were advised over and over again, particularly people writing for the weekly standard or -- yet it became a secondary issue for the romney campaign for one which decided the only

issue that really mattered was the economy and he would focus on that and obama care would take second place and it did or third place or maybe fourth place. host: a couple exit polls on the 2010 health care law that came in, what should happen in 2010 to the health care the law 26% according to exit polls said it should be expanded. 18% said leave it as is and 24% repeal some of it and 25% says repeal all of that. >> it adds up to 44% to expand it or keep it as it is. i wouldn't call that a ringing endorsement of obama care, and but we'll see and there are some republican governors who will have to decide now what they are going to do. this was one thing that was so clearly at stake in the 2012 election.

are we going to have obama care? we're not. is it going to be implemented and installed and be there sflever well, you can decide that by voting for or against obama and obama won. host: good morning, connie. caller: good morning, and good morning fred. there is nothing wrong with the republican party. it is -- we lost this election by just a tiny bit. we should keep our values. hang on to our values. and the most important thing -- well, obama is getting ready to take off and run to all these countries giving his nation- building speeches and giving his family a vacation and all this and that, but there's only one nation that we should be

nation-building with, and that's israel. because israel -- israel is -- that's god's chosen land. the jews are god's chosen people. host: ok, connie, let's give fred barnes a chance to comment. guest: well, i mean that was an issue between romney who was much more pro israel though publicly in particular. we'll see how that turns out. i personally don't begrudge him a vacation after the campaign, like to take one myself. but there was another part -- oh, yeah. what she said in the beginning about the republican party. is it really in deep trouble? i don't think so. obviously hispanics are a problem.

younger senators and governors, they have 30 governors who are extremely important, 30 out of 50. like bob mcdonald in virginia and bobby jindal and scott walker in wisconsin and so on. republicans actually -- romney actually won i believe the middle class. if you have the middle class as people who make between $50,000 a year and $100,000 a year, romney won that group narrowly. the middle class is up for grabs but romney did well enough there but just not well enough to win. host: on the question of what the republican party needs to do, charles route hammer writes in today's "washington post," the company doesn't need two liberal parties. yes, the country needs to weed out morons who talk about rape that way but the -- agree with that statement?

guest: that's well-written. i'd like to say. i know charles and -- when you -- are you pro life or pro choice and pro life? but got a majority. the republican party is going to continue to be the pro life party. the one in missouri and the one in indiana were peculiar and if you're a pro-life republican who can't discuss the issue in a way charles says is delicate and sensible, then you're going to hurt yourself.

but those are aberrations. those two republicans running in missouri and indiana. host: on the republican line, good morning, d.j. caller: hello. i want to know why it is that the republicans are so one- sided and really don't look into minorities like they should. you say they do, but i believe they try to hide what they really think and hold it to themselves because you know no one can really go into countries and analyze what they say about anything. you saw the video they had on mitt romney they had about 47% and msnbc and i don't agree with it, and i feel like the stuff he was saying behind closed doors, with the republicans were really thinking and what he said in public, nobody is really going to say what they really think on national tv in front of millions

of people. i want to know why -- guest: i think you get fletch public what republicans really believe in. the 47% was not only a dumb statement by romney but an inaccurate one. because it includes people on social security or retirement so the idea that somehow 47% of the population because they do get something from the government so therefore they are democratic voters is not true. but in truth, i think say look republicans are conservative and talk about it and some don't do it as well but i think what you see is what you get. that's what you got from ronlt regan and both bush presidents and who is more republican than oncane for republicans in 2008?

and i think you really heard from mitt romney what he really believes. host: on twitter, republicans need to anchor their campaigns on liberty and individual responsibility to educate the voter on america's heritage. now to elizabeth. you're on with fred barnes. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. where is union grove? caller: where is union grove? guest: yes. caller: right outside of alabama. guest: ok. spoir. go ahead. caller: well, i think obama needs to get his priorities in order instead of going out of country right now. he needs to stay in the united states and address the libya and benghazi attacks where we

lost four outstanding americans. he needs to go to the east coast and take care of the fema things that people are not getting help and now it's snowing on them so they are in even more distress than they were and i think they should put off going outside of the country and address what he needs to address first. >> well, i think you are right about it but a lot of things are forced on him right now. the spending and debt and another vote will be coming up early next year on the another debt limit increase. look, he is going to have to deal with those and there will be some important testimony when the general who was in charge of i think the african command in the u.s. military will testify before some committee in congress.

lot we're going to learn a more. because the whole benghazi issue is not going to go away and the president is i think going to have a different set of priorities, because they are going to be forced on him. the president has basically ducked the entitlement issue for his first term. he is going to have to deal with that. because it won't go away and medicare and medicaid from spiraling out of criminal -- out of control fiscal and these are the things he will have to deal with whether he likes it or not and he's obviously reconciled to dealing with them. host: a recent column in "the new york times" after the election, john waver. want to read you his statement. he says we can become a party of -- to do latter we have to fix

our hispanic problem as quickly as possible. we've got to accept science and start -- start calling out things that are just not true and not tolerating the intolerable. host: he referred to the climate change issue. guest: that's a great dispute among scientists. whether the projections of the climate catastrophe later this century are going to happen or not, i don't think the science, while some of the global warming people are telling you the science people are excited, we'll find out. >> we bring you live coverage of the u.s. house. members are holding what is expected to be a brief pro forma session.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., november 9, 2012. i hereby appoint the honorable andy harris to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the

prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. god of the universe, we give you thanks for giving us another day. as the people's house reconvenes next week, we give you thanks that we live in a nation that has a system that allows for a change or a readjustment of government peacefully. bless the members of this aservely as they begin upon the work of the days to come. please give them the wisdom they need and the charity they must possess to work together, help them to make wise decisions in a good manner and to carry their responsibilities steadily with high hopes for a better future for our great nation. deepen their faith, widen their sympathies, heighten their aspirations and give them the strength to do what ought to be

done for this country. may your blessing, o god, be with them and with us all this day and every day to come and may all we do be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-a of house resolution 788, the journal of the last day's proceedings is approved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. pursuant to section 3-b of house resolution 788, the house stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on tuesday, november 13,

2012. >> the house in a pro forma session today, they will return next week for the lame duck session, and topping the engine that will be avoiding the so- called fiscal cliff. that is where we begin today in the east room of the white house, where we are waiting for the president to come to the podium there and talk about what he sees as the way forward to avoid this fiscal cliff. that is what we are expecting him to talk about, and this will be the first public comments by the president since returning to washington from chicago. "the washington post" noting the president had very few days to

hold this news conference before he leaves next week for a trip to thailand, cambodia and burma, the first visit by the united states president to that isolated nation. that is "the washington post" this morning. we're learning the president has invited congress to the white house for fiscal cliff talks, inviting them to join him in negotiations there. john boehner two hours ago holding his own news conference, talking about the fiscal cliff, saying, according to abc news, he wants to come to grips with the deficit in 2013. he said 2013 must be the year the federal government comes to grips with its budget deficit, but staked out the same note tax increase for the wealthy but the republican party has insisted on since before the presidential election. saying perhaps they should

continue with the bush tax cuts and the other expiring tax cuts until 2013, when they can come up with some long-term way to address the entire tax code. that news conference about two hours ago. if you missed it, you can go to our website and we will show it to you as well on c-span. we're waiting for the president to arrive here. he will be delivering a statement about the economy, and the deficit. let's listen in while we wait for the president to come to the podium. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> two-minute warning.

this is that two-minute warning. >> ladies and gentlemen, the

president and vice president of the united states. [cheers and applaus] >> thank you. thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you very much. everybody, please have a seat. thank you. the afternoon, everybody. -- good afternoon, everybody. now that those of us on the campaign trail have had a chance to get a little sleep, it is time to get back to work, and there's plenty of work to do. as i said on tuesday night, the american people voted for action, not politics as usual. you elected us to focus on your jobs, not ours. in that spirit, i have invited

leaders of both parties to the white house next week so we can start to build consensus around the challenges that we can only solve together. i also intend to bring in business and labor and civic leaders from all across the the country to get their ideas as well. in a time when our economy is still recovering from the great recession, our top priority has to be jobs and growth. that is the focus of the plan that i talked about during the campaign. [applause] it is a plan to reward small businesses and manufacturers to agree jobs here, not overseas, a plan to give people the chance to get the education and training that businesses are looking for right now. it is a plan to make sure this country is a global leader in research and technology and clean energy, which will attract new companies and high-wage

jobs for america. it is a plan put americans back to work, including veterans, rebuilding our infrastructure, and it is a plan to reduce our deficit in a balanced and responsible way. our work is made that much more urgent because at the end of this year we face a series of deadlines that requires to make major decisions about how to pay our deficit down. decisions that will have a huge impact on economies and the middle class, both now and in the future. last year i work with democrats and republicans to cut $1 trillion in spending that we could not afford. i intend to work with both parties to do more, and that includes making reforms that will bring down the cost of health care so we can strengthen the programs like medicaid and medicare for the long haul. but as i have said before, we cannot just cut our way to prosperity.

if we are serious about reducing the deficit, we have the combined spending cuts with revenue, and that means asking the wealthiest americans to pay a little more in taxes. that is how we did it -- [applause] that is how we did it in the 1990's when bill clinton was president, and that is how we can reduce the deficit while still making the investments we need to build a strong middle class and a strong economy. that is the only way we can still afford to train our workers or help our kids pay for college or make sure that good jobs and clean energy in high- tech manufacturing do not and other countries like china. already i have put forward a detailed plan that allows us to make a make make these investments by reducing the doesn't bite $4 trillion of the next decade. i want to be clear, i am not

wedded to every detail of my plan, i am open to compromise, i am open to new ideas. i am committed to solving our fiscal challenges. but i refuse to accept any approach that is not balanced. i am not want to ask students and seniors and middle-class families to pay down the entire deficit while people like me making over $250,000 are not asked to pay a dime more in taxes. i am not one to do that. th[applause] i just want to point out this was a central question during the election. it was debated over and over again, and on tuesday night we found out that the majority of americans agree with my approach, and that includes democrats, independents, and a lot of republicans across the

country, as well as independent budget, t economists. our job now is to get a majority in congress to reflect the will of the american people. i believe we can get that majority. i was encouraged to hear speaker boehner agree that tax revenue has to be part of this question, so i look forward to hearing his ideas when i see him next week. let me make one final point that every american needs to hear. right now if congress fails to come to an agreement on an overall deficit reduction package by the end of the year, every buddy's taxes will automatically go up on jet everyone -- everybody's. including the 90 percent of americans who make less than $250,000 a year. that makes no sense. it would be bad for the economy and would hit families that are already struggling to make ends meet. fortunately, we should not need

long negotiations or trauma to solve that part of the problem. while there may be disagreements in congress over whether or not to raise taxes on folks making over $250,000 a year, nobody, not republicans, not democrats, want taxes to go up for folks making under $250,000 a year. that's not wait. even as we are negotiating a broader deficit reduction package, that extend in the middle-class tax cut right them. let's do that right now. [applause] that one step would get millions of families, 90% of americans, and 97% of small businesses the same with the certainty that they need going into the new year it would immediately take a huge jump at the economic

uncertainty off the table, and that will lead to new jobs and faster growth. business will know that consumers are not going to see a big tax increase. they will know that most small businesses will not seek a tax increase. a lot of the uncertainty you are reading about will be removed. in fact, the senate has already passed a bill doing this, so all we need is action from the house. i have the pen, the sign the bill, right away. i am ready to do it. i am ready to do it. [applause] the american people understand we will have differences and this agreement in the months to come. they get that. on tuesday they said loud and clear that they will not tolerate this luncheon, they will not tolerate the switch -- politicians who've you compromise as it turned word,

less as a dirty word, not when so many families and small businesses are struggling to pay the bills. the american people are looking for cooperation, looking for a consensus, they are looking for common sense. most of all they want action. i intend to deliver for them in my second term, and i expect to find willing partners in both parties to make that happen. let's get to work. thank you very much, everybody. thank you. [applause] [cheers]

>> president obama at the white house just moments ago, addressing the cameras there in his first public comments since returning to washington for another four years in the white house. the president talking about the economy and the deficit and avoiding that so-called fiscal cliff, saying that he would like to continue the tax cuts for the middle class americans right now and then have the leaders of congress and himself negotiate everything else that deals with that so-called fiscal cliff. we're taking your phone call with your phone calls. get your phone calls here in just a few seconds, as we continue to watch this room and

full barrett no questions from reporters for the president appeared by the way, house speaker john boehner gave his own news conference. he took questions a couple of hours ago, and we will bring that to you hear it just about 10 minutes in case you missed it. you can also find it on our website at c-span.org. the speaker said raising taxes even on the wealthiest americans, he said, could hurt the economy, but he did say he was open to the idea of raising revenue by lowering tax rates and eliminating special interest the polls corporations and individuals. how the two sites come together we all have to wait and see, but we want to get your take. keith, pontiac, michigan, what do you think? caller: thank you for taking my call. i think that -- i am glad to say that obama got the elected, and

we fought hard and went out there to vote, and we sewed up democrats and independents. i think the rich should pay more taxes. i do not think paying less taxes than your secretary is a good thing in the way. i think middle class people should be the ones with the tax breaks, not the bridge. host: started up by saying we showed up and we voted for the president. do you feel like the president owes you something now, and if so, what is it? >> caller: i do not think the president owes me anything as far as the democrats. i think he owes the american people as a whole or jobs and creating them, and we have two years straight of job creation. is doinghe president'

what bill clinton did in the 1990's, and i was only in elementary school then, but interested in politics for a long time since high school. >> hold on, i want to go on with what he said. he said we need to cut spending and increase taxes? caller: bill clinton, he raised taxes on the rich, and look at where we were at the end of his term, 20 million-plus jobs and the economy was booming. everything was priced the dollar was a lot more than it is now. there are taxes on everything, taxes went up on everything. the way the president is going on with the next four years, not

depending on oil as much, and 20 years from now, 20 years ago, and i think obama is -- and obama -- joe biden has done an incredible job. even secretary of state hillary clinton. host: one to go to chris in houston. you are republican on the air. what did you think? caller: i heard a bunch of rah- rah win one for the kippur stuff that we have heard for the last four years, and we know over the last four years obama's speeches are not followed up with any severe to get action. a couple things, i am troubled a couple days ago, i see him getting off of air force one with harry reid, that i did not see in getting off air force one with mitch mcconnell or john boehner.

that proves more how partisan this guy is. host: did you hear the president say he is inviting congressional leaders of the white house next week to talk about the fiscal cliff? caller: i did, and it is just a bunch of other empty rhetoric to me as he has already said he will go around congress if he does not feel he can work with them. that goes to show at the end of the day at the he has got a little more disdain for republicans that he leads on. john kasich and mary taylor in ohio, they have proven in their state that you can balance its budget without raising taxes one bit, and of of events are dead on. we do not res to -- we do not need to raise taxes one bit, and maybe i'm crazy, but i think obama is interested with

democrats to push a one-sided agenda. host: boehner said he would like to see some short-term deal on these expiring tax cuts, extend them, get everybody through the rest of 2012, and the work of something bigger for 2013. do you agree with that, or should congress and the president deal with the issue now? caller: i think they should deal with it now. there's a lot to tackle between now and january 1. i do not think we are on to be able to make a big dent in reforming the tax code before january 1. we knew this was coming down the pike a year and a half ago, and him are still talking about kicking the can. we have got to deal with it now. host: in los angeles, your thoughts? caller: that you for taking my call. i heard boehner speak earlier on c-span, and i love c-span, i think you guys are great. i heard of, just a few minutes

ago, and boehner is talking about i am going to not tax the rich, talking about hurting -- another word for them to still protect the 1%. here in california, we just passed several propositions in this election that are going to pay for our education for our children. from a tax increase. everyone voted for it in california. it passed with no problems. if america can see california as an example, if the republicans would wake up and see california as an example, you know what, sometimes you have to pay for what you want. do you want things in your country, or who needs to pay for them who is going to derive benefit host: what is your reaction to what voters set

about raising taxes on those making to the $50,000 or more, he said a majority of them are small business owners hamas and if you raise their taxes, they will have to fire people and it will impact jobs. what do you think? caller: it is the fear. republicans need to go back to their base and diminish the fear of you are going to lose your job. you are going to have taxes, you are going to lose your job. show us the math that is going to prove your point, speaker boehner, instead of just telling us. do not tell me. show me. host: that we encourage you to watch what the leader of boehner had to say next, because he cites some reports in his news conference, and in case you are interested, you can google them and the fun of yourself. the associated press has this story after the news conference by the speaker, and there have

line is boehner said that limit should be part of talks. john boehner says any deal to avert the so-called fiscal cliff should include lower tax rates, eliminating the special interest the polls, and revising the tax code. boehner said also in this store that he had a brief conversation with the president earlier this week, as the chief executive and congressional leaders negotiate a way to avoid the fiscal cliff, and as we heard from the president, he has invited the congressional leaders to the white house next week to get to work on this. will in albuquerque, go ahead. caller: i like what the president spoke about, but i got to get this off my head. boehner, what are you doing? c'mon, man. work with the president. you always want to say you are working with the present, but you are just spinning the wheels as a republican, and i honestly i did not understand that. we own a small business in albuquerque, and his thing about this to and $50,000 a year type thing, spending and losing jobs

it for business is ridiculous, and i personally believe that if boehner does not get off his butt and start working with the democrats, he is making himself look like the gop is making him look like they are not doing anything. harry reid always says he wants to work with everybody, and these guys over here, mcconnell and boehner, they are just spinning their wheels. host: id you call that ridiculous, this statement on raising taxes on those earning 2 and 50,000 more? caller: i do not think it is on to affect us because if we are making money, we're gonna have to give it back to them and we are not want to secure our business loans p. host: is it true that small business owners make a run that much? caller: i know we do not, but

other businesses might make to in a $50,000 or more. host: what type of food service are you in? caller: ice cream store. host: you have always been a democrat? caller: yes. host: the caller, go ahead. caller: i just read the column, november 6, nothing changes, and we are back to where we started. boehner says he's does not want to raise taxes anymore. threeys letting the nextop tax brackets expire is light getting the economy " off the cliff. harry reid said democrats want to be worked with them, but they do not want to be pushed around. reid was referencing the last time we had debt ceiling talks, when democrats had an amazing

lost in that conversation. host: do you think needs to compromise? caller: republicans need to compromise, because just because of the fact that we have been holding out this long, and they have already taken a humiliating loss from the election, not having romney voted in. host: is mitch mcconnell in an interview. set i know some people out there think these results mean republicans in washington are now going to roll over and agree to democrat demands that the high tax rates before the end of the. i'm here to tell them there is no truth to that notion whatsoever. we will go to nick in hyannis, massachusetts, democratic column. that afternoon. what do you think of the president's statement? caller: thought it was right on. he made the case the republicans were making that they are not listening to what the people set on november 6, which is they're

totally behind a tax increase for the higher-income people in the country, and i think when the republicans try to lump in their terminology that tax rates president everybody -- said it is only 99% of the country that would not see a tax increase and 98% of businesses, and when they come out and say. it did not work during the election and is not working now. it worked under clinton. things were much better when that formula worked, and you have 12 years under reagan and bush and eight years under bush when it does not. but for does not work. -- the trickle-down does not work. host: the speaker said he does nothing and he mentioned this in

an interview earlier, but he does not think a lame duck congress should do big things. this should wait for the 113th congress, for the new house of representatives and senators to come to congress. what do you think? caller: is is an issue they pushed off last year in hopes the election would turn to their side so they can push their own agenda, and now they are just try to pushing it off. needs to be addressed right away, and they needs to do start listening to the people who voted, where they will find themselves voted out with the next the terms, because people in there and state are saying we are behind raising taxes on the upper class. they need to stop listening to their donors and listen to their constituents. host: did you vote for l elizabeth warren? caller: i did.

and if republicans have seen the writing on the wall after the elections, and weather's got round vote on it or elizabeth warren of votes on it, scott brown was very independence while he was in office, and i think he would vote for it, because if he wants to run for a future office, which he has alluded to in his speech, he knows that he would have to vote for something like this, or else it could be used against unlike other things were when he ran this past time. host: will leave it there and go to boehner. a couple hours ago, earlier this morning, at his news conference, talking about avoiding the so- called fiscal cliff. >> good morning everyone. on wednesday responsible path

toward, without raising taxes. about 24 hours after i spoke, the congressional budget office released a report showing the most harmful consequences of the fiscal cliff come from increasing tax rates. according to ernst & young, raising the top rates would destroy nearly 700,000 jobs in our country. the members of our majority understand how important it is to avert a fiscal cliff, and action to replace the sequestration with other types of cuts, and why we passed a bill to extend all of the current tax rates for one year, so that we had time to overhaul our tax code. it is why i outlined a responsible path forward paving

the way for entitlement reform and tax reform with lower rates. 2013 should be the year that we begin to solve our debt with tax reform in the entitlement reform. i propose we avert the fiscal cliff together in a manner that we insure that 2013 is the year that our government comes to grips with the problems facing us, bringing jobs home, results and a stronger economy, more revenue, which is what the president is seeking. this framework can lead to common ground, and i hope the president responds in the same spirit. as i said wednesday, this is an opportunity for the president to lead, engage the congress

and work toward a solution that can pass both chambers. earlier this week, we had a short conversation. it was cordial. we both understand trying to find a way to avert the fiscal cliff is important for our country, and i am hopeful productive conversations can begin soon so that we can forge an agreement that can pass congress. with that, i will be happy to answer some questions. vowed[indiscernible] >> if you start talking about some of this revenue, did think he will see the same problems when you start to talk about these issues?

>> when the president and i have been able to come to an agreement, there has been no problem getting it passed in the house. [indiscernible] coffeehouse>> the president did not layout the deficit goal. what is the deficit goal that you have in mind? >> currently, the deficit is a drag on our economy, and we cannot spend money that we do not have. i do not want to box myself in the or box anyone else in, but it is important to come to an agreement with the president, but this is his opportunity to lead. follow the rules. >> what? >> disqualified. yes, sir.

>> give us an idea of where you're going with that, because if tax rates are not on the table, are you talking about going after deductions? >> there are special interest loopholes, both corporate and personal in the tax code, and it is also clear there are deductions that makes sense, and others do not. by lowering the rates, we know we will get more economic growth. it will bring jobs back to america, more revenue. we know that if we clean up the code and make it simpler, the tax code will be more efficient. the current code only collects about 85% of what is due to the government. it is clear if you have a more simple, more clear, more fair tax code, that effectiveness and efficiency increases exponentially.

>> the president won reelection, more people voted for democrats in the house than republicans. why do you have leverage? >> there is a republican majority in the house. the american people reelected a republican majority. ourproud of the fact that team, in a difficult year, was able to maintain our majority. there are a lot of races out there outstanding. it is clear that as a political party, we have work to do. we believe in individual responsibility, empowering our citizens and the american dream. how we talk about who we are as a party is clearly a conversation that is underway and will continue.

>> mr. speaker, do you plan to have a vote on the russian trade and human rights legislation? >> you would have to ask mr. cantor. >> is it fair to say you could use the raising of the debt cliff? >> it is an issue that has to be addressed sooner rather than later. >> mr. speaker, following on jake's question, a number of overwhelming number of americans favored raising taxes on the wealthiest americans. would you be guided by that principle at all? >> listen, the problem with raising tax rates on the wealthiest americans is that more than half of them are small business owners. we know from ernst & young 700,000 jobs would be destroyed.

we also know it would slow down our economy. the number one issue in the election is about the economy and jobs. everybody wants to get our economy moving again and more americans back to work again. raising tax rates will slow down our ability to create the jobs that everybody says they want. >> mr. speaker, what are you looking for on the entitlement side? restraining the growth of social security and medicare? >> listen we are spending $1 trillion more than what we take in. you cannot continue to do that. this is year two of a 25-year demographic bubble, and it was not like anyone could not see it coming.

23 million baby boomers retire every year. it is not like there is money in the social security and medicare. everything on the revenue side and on the spending side has to be looked at. >> mr. speaker. >> i am going to call on you. i am not blind. the young lady here. >> thank you. i wanted to go back to your remarks on immigration. when you said comprehensive immigration reform, are you endorsing a path to citizenship? >> i am not talking about a 3000-page bill, but a common- sense approach that secures our borders, enforces the law and fixes a broken immigration system.

again, on an issue this big, the president has to lead. members on both sides of the aisle want to resolve these issues. to citizenship? >> i will not get into the details, but it is time to get the job done. >> it sounds like a framework for next year to do tax reform and entitlements. ? >> i do not want to option -- limit the options available to the white house. there are a lot of ways to get there, and i do not really want

to preclude anyone who might have very it is clear that we have got to fix our broken tax system and we have to get it -- to deal with our spending problems. >> will this be part of a sequester part of a bigger deal? >> nice try. >> is calling it a tax reform does that mean that it is more palatable to your caucus? >> we have had this discussion over the last year and a half. you know the president and i were attempting to deal with this that there were revenues on the table. you can reduce revenues and put revenue on the table to fixing a broken tax system the getting

our economy going again, and getting more americans back to work. thanks, everybody. host: john boehner from earlier talking about the looming negotiations between congressional leaders and the white house over the so-called fiscal cliff. john boehner spoke about two hours before the president did, and we covered that address. his first public comments since winning a second term and returning to washington from chicago. we will show you what the president had to say coming up. we will bring you live coverage of the daily white house briefing with the white house spokesperson, jay carney. i went through run through with 3 tax cuts will

expire on december 31. host: we heard from the president earlier that he would like to extend a tax cut for middle-class now and a sheet the rest. here is what the full comments from president obama earlier today.

>> thank you. thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you very much. everybody, please have a seat. thank you. good afternoon, everybody. now that those of us on the campaign trail have had a chance to get a little sleep, it is time to get back to work, and there's plenty of work to do. as i said on tuesday night, the american people voted for action, not politics as usual. you elected us to focus on your jobs, not ours. in that spirit, i have invited leaders of both parties to the white house next week so we can start to build consensus around the challenges that we can only solve together. i also intend to bring in business and labor and civic leaders from all across the the country to get their ideas as

well. in a time when our economy is still recovering from the great recession, our top priority has to be jobs and growth. viperthat is the focus of the plan campaign. [applause] it is a plan to reward small businesses and manufacturers to agree jobs here, not overseas, a plan to give people the chance to get the education and training that businesses are looking for right now. it is a plan to make sure this country is a global leader in research and technology and clean energy, which will attract new companies and high- wage jobs for america. it is a plan put americans back to work, including veterans, rebuilding our infrastructure, and it is a plan to reduce our deficit in a balanced and responsible way. our work is made that much more

urgent because at the end of this year we face a series of deadlines that requires to make major decisions about how to pay our deficit down. decisions that will have a huge impact on economies and the middle class, both now and in the future. last year i work with democrats and republicans to cut $1 trillion in spending that we could not afford. i intend to work with both parties to do more, and that includes making reforms that will bring down the cost of health care so we can strengthen the programs like medicaid and medicare for the long haul. but as i have said before, we cannot just cut our way to prosperity. if we are serious about reducing the deficit, we have the combined spending cuts with revenue, and that means asking the wealthiest americans to pay a little more in taxes. that is how we did it -- [applause]

that is how we did it in the 1990's when bill clinton was president, and that is how we can reduce the deficit while still making the investments we need to build a strong middle class and a strong economy. that is the only way we can still afford to train our workers or help our kids pay for college or make sure that good jobs and clean energy in high-tech manufacturing do not and other countries like china. already i have put forward a detailed plan that allows us to make a make make these investments by reducing the next decade. i want to be clear, i am not wedded to every detail of my plan, i am open to compromise, i am open to new ideas. fiscal challenges. but i refuse to accept any approach that is not balanced.

i am not want to ask students and seniors and middle-class families to pay down the entire deficit while people like me making over $250,000 are not asked to pay a dime more in taxes. not going to do that. [applause] i just want to point out this was a central question during the election. it was debated over and over again, and on tuesday night we found out that the majority of americans agree with my approach, and that includes democrats, independents, and a lot of republicans across the country, as well as independent budget economists. our job now is to get a majority in congress to reflect the will of the american people. majority. i was encouraged to hear speaker boehner agree that tax

revenue has to be part of this question, so i look forward to hearing his ideas when i see him next week. let me make one final point that every american needs to hear. right now if congress fails to come to an agreement on an overall deficit reduction package by the end of the year, everybody's taxes automatically go up on jet everyone -- everybody's. including the 90 percent of americans who make less than $250,000 a year. that makes no sense. it would be bad for the economy and would hit families that are already struggling to make ends meet. fortunately, we should not need long negotiations or trauma to solve that part of the problem. while there may be disagreements in congress over whether or not to raise taxes on folks making over $250,000 a year, nobody, not republicans, not democrats, want taxes to go up for folks making under

$250,000 a year. that's not wait. wait.'s not even as we are negotiating a broader deficit reduction package, that extend in the middle-class tax cut right them. -- right now. let's do that right now. [applause] that one step would get millions of families, 90% of americans, and 97% of small businesses the same with the certainty that they need going into the new year it would immediately take a huge jump at the economic uncertainty off the table, and that will lead to new jobs and faster growth. business will know that consumers are not going to see a big tax increase. they will know that most small businesses will not seek a tax increase. a lot of the uncertainty you

are reading about will be removed. in fact, the senate has already passed a bill doing this, so all we need is action from the house. i have the pen, the sign the bill, right away. i am ready to do it. i am ready to do it. [applause] the american people understand we will have differences and come. they get that. on tuesday they said loud and clear that they will not tolerate this function, they will not tolerate the switch -- politicians who've you compromise as it turned word, less as a dirty word, not when so many families and small businesses are struggling to pay the bills. the american people are looking for cooperation, looking for a consensus, they are looking for common sense. most of all they want action. i intend to deliver for them in

my second term, and i expect to find willing partners in both parties to make that happen. let's get to work. thank you very much, everybody. thank you. [applause] thank you, guys. host: president obama from earlier today, his first formal remarks since winning the election on tuesday night, talking about the fiscal cliff, saying he has invited congressional leaders to the white house next week to start up talks broadway. this address by the president

follows a news conference from john boehner who did take questions from reporters earlier today. in that news conference, the speaker saying he would like to see some short some sort of short term deal on expiring tax cuts from the bush era that would bring them to 2013. he thinks that this lame duck congress should not do big things, it should be left to the 113th congress which will convene in january. here is the headline from "the new york times" and what they have to say. boehner several each other. they know the congressional budget office on thursday put out a report going to the dilemma that the two sides face. if automatic spending cuts go into force and all the bush-era tax cuts expire, the nation would slip into recession next

year, and an opponent would rise to 9.1%. they say simply canceling this deficit reduction measures would risk a financial crisis that would make matters worse. this is a report from the congressional budget office, if you're interested in reading that. edison "the new york times," story following the 2 news conferences we discovered picked coming up in a few minutes, which will bring you live coverage of the white house daily press briefing, jay carney talking to reporters as he does at 2:00 p.m. eastern time, live coverage on c-span. we will be waiting for him to come to the podium here in just a few minutes. in the meantime, we want to show you a little bit from today's " washington journal," the washington bureau chief from the

"los angeles times." ast: we're joined now by reporter for a deeper dive into the makeup of the americans who came out to vote on tuesday. thank you for coming in. the headline from the peace in the "l.a.a from times." guest: the electorate was the most diverse, racially, ethnically, and in matters of culture, of any that we have had in the past american elections. -- is no longer a mont this is no longer a monolith ically white country. host: much has been made about

the declining white folks coming out of the 2012 election cycle, the white vote making up 72% of this year plus electorate. would that be the deciding factor in this election? guest: it probably was the biggest single factor. there were several factors going into the election, but that was the predominant one. the decline of the white share of the vote from 1974 -- from 2% does not sound like a lot, but that is millions of people. they had hoped that it would be higher than in 2008. they had calculated if the white share to of course, romney would win easily. if it stayed the exactly the same share in 2008, they thought they could get through. democrats optimistically felt maybe it would go down a point.

it went down to put some of which is something that even the most optimistic democrats thought would be a stretch. host: exit polls said that romney took 59% of the white vote to obama's 39%. we focused on the hispanic vote. obama taking 71% according to exit polls to mitt romney's 27%. talk to us about your take on the hispanic vote this cycle. guest: are two things. one is it was bigger and it was even more lopsided the democratic than it had been married you mention the national numbers, but if you look at key states, it is more dramatic. the florida. the race is still not been officially called, but the republicans have already said they know they're not going to win. the latino vote, the hispanic vote went up from